Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Davangere Ps vs A1 S Chethana on 17 June, 2025
1 Spl.CC No.489/2019
KABC010156852019
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
Spl.CC. No. 489 / 2019
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayukta Police, Davanagere
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Smt.S.Chethana
W/o T.N.Srikantaswamy
Aged about 54 years
No.241, 3rd Main,
P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
Presently residing at H.No.4,
4th Cross, Siddaganga
Extension, Tumakuru
2. Smt.S.Swetha
W/o H.S.Nagaraj
Aged about 43 years
2 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Residing at No.218, 3rd Main,
P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
3. Smt.M.G.Sonibai
W/o M.Basavaraj Naik
Aged about 56 years
Residing at Alura Hatti,
Mellekatte Post, Davanagere
Taluk.
Presently residing at 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Vidyanagara,
Davanagere.
4. Sri M.Guddappa
S/o Manya Naik
Aged about 73 Years
Retired Manager,
(Retired on 31.10.2012)
Canara Bank
No.848, 2nd Bus-stop,
Taralabalu Badavane
Vidyanagara, Davanagere.
5. Sri R.Dharmanaik
S/o. Ramanaik,
Aged about 46 Years
Hostel Warden,
High School Boys Hostel,
B.C.M Department,
Near JMIT College,
P.B.Road, Davanagere.
Also residing at 3rd Cross,
DCM Township, Davanagere.
3 Spl.CC No.489/2019
6. Smt. Sunitha.G.
W/o. Dronanaik,
Aged about 46 Years
Assistant Teacher,
Kundawada Government High
School, Davanagere Taluk and
District.
Residing at No.848, Near 2nd
Bus Stop, Tharalabalu Layout,
Davanagere.
7. Sri Prasanna Kumar G.S.
(DEAD)
8. Dr. J.H.Gowri Bai
W/o. Dr.K.R.Gangadhar Naik,
Aged about 70 Years
Retired Doctor,
(Voluntary retired in 1996)
No.320, Siddaiah Puranik
Road, Basaveswara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
9. Sri K.M.Virupakshappa @
Madal Virupakshappa
S/o Mallappa,
Aged about 75 Years
Ex.MLA, Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Chennagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
10. Smt.Sudharani H.J
W/o Mallikarjuna M.V.
4 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 38 Years
Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Channagere Tq.,
Davanagere District
11. Sri M.V.Praveen Kumar
S/o Virupakshappa @
Madal Virupakshappa
(Ex-Vidhanasabha Member)
Aged about 46 Years
Real Estate Business
Chennakeshavapura,
Madal Post, Channagere Tq.,
Davanagere District.
12. Sri M.N.Deepak
S/o M.J.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 37 years
Residing at No.231,
Nijalingappa Layout,
Davanagere.
13. Sri G.S.Hanumantha
S/o J.H.Sharanappa
Aged about 59 years
Cycle Stand Contractor
in Bapuji Hospital premises,
Residing at No.2035/72,
13th Cross, Anjaneya
Extension, Davanagere.
14. Sri Shivajinaik P.T.
S/o Thavarenaik,
5 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 54 years
Lakshmipura,
Harappanahalli Tq.,
Davanagere District
15. Sri Venkateshwaranaik
S/o Thavarenaik
Aged about 54 years
Lakshmipura,
Harappanahalli Tq.,
Davanagere district
16. Smt.A.S.Monika
D/o Mruthyunjaya
Aged about 36 Years
A.S. No.916, Ajjampura
Shettar Layout, Nittuvalli,
K.B.Extension, Davanagere.
17. Dr. B.Vasanth Kumar
S/o. Late C.Basappa,
Aged about 56 Years
Government Medical Officer,
City Family Welfare Centre,
Doddapete, Davanagere.
Residing at No.992/66,
11th Cross, M.E.S., near
Convent School, Anjaneya
Extension, Davanagere.
18. Dr. B.G.Goutham
S/o. G.Basavaraj
@ G.Siddabasappa,
6 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Aged about 37 Years
BDS Doctor, No.2402/1,
1st Floor, 10th Main,
MCC 'A' Block,
Near Bakkerswara High
School, Davanagere.
19. Dr.Sunil.S. Byadagi
S/o. Srishyla Byadagi,
Private Doctor,
Aged about 49 Years
Sukshema Hospital,
Davanagere.
Residing at No.1968/01,
'Shilpika', MCC 'A' Block,
Shamanooru Road,
Davanagere.
20. Smt.Latha
W/o K.T.Nagaraj Naik
Aged about 44 Years
Residing at No.2000/16,
1st Main, 11th Cross,
Taralabalu Extension,
Davanagere.
21. Smt. Netravathi N.K
W/o Thippeswamy H.D,
Aged about 66 years,
House wife,
Residing at No.1481/20,
1st A Cross, Siddaveerappa
Layout, near BIET,
Davanagere.
7 Spl.CC No.489/2019
22. Smt.H.M.Mukthambha
W/o S.Manjunath,
Aged about 59 Years
Senior Assistant,
LIC of India,
Challakere Branch
Residing at Ashraya Nilaya,
Near Bapuji College,
Chitradurga District.
23. Sri P.P.Aradhya Mutt
S/o Parvathayya Aradhyamutt
Aged about 71 Years
Kumarapattam,
Retd. Employee of Grasim
Factory,
Residing at Behind Hotel
Manohar Cafe, Halladakeri,
Shivamogga Road,
Harihara Town.
24. Smt.Rajeshwari
W/o H.R.Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 66 Years
House Wife,
Residing at No.1341/5,
2nd Cross, 2nd Stage,
Shivakumaraswamy Layout,
Davanagere.
Presently residing at
No.K.A.101, 10th cross,
V.V.Nagar, Mandya.
8 Spl.CC No.489/2019
25. Smt. Manjula
W/o Murugesh
Aged about 51 Years
Junior Engineer,
Mahanagara Palike,
Davanagere
No.3780/2, Sahyadri Nilaya
M.C.C. 'B' Block,
Near Shankara Leela Kalyana
Mantap, Davanagere.
26. Sri Nagaraj.T
S/o Basappa,
Aged about 65 Years
Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Department,
Divisional Office,
Kashipura Road,
Shivamogga.
Residing at No.801-3-4-5,
Shivakumara Swamy Nagar,
2nd Phase, Davanagere.
27. Sri Suresh.B.
S/o. Bharamappa Y,
Aged about 59 Years
Principal,
Government ITI College,
Chitradurga.
Residing at No.3714/56,
13th Main, M.C.C. 'A' Block,
Davanagere.
9 Spl.CC No.489/2019
28. Sri Nijaguna Shivacharya
S/o Murugendraswamy N.B,
Aged about 64 Years
Private Engineer at N.B.Bapuji
Educational Institute
Residing at No.2849/1, 4th
Main, 7th Cross, M.C.C. 'B'
Block, Davanagere.
29. Sri Basavarajanaik.M.
S/o Manya Naik
Aged about 59 Years
Ex-MLA, Mayakonda
Constituency
Residing at Alura Hatti Grama
Mellekatte Post,
Davanagere Taluk.
Presently residing at 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Vidyanagara,
Davanagere.
30. Sri S.A.Ravindranath
Aged about 79 Years
Ex-District Administrative
Minister, Davanagere District
R/o Shiramagondanahalli
Grama, Davanagere Taluk.
31. Sri Yeshwanth Rao Jadhav
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged 60 years,
Ex-President,
Davanagere-Harihara
Nagarabiruddi Pradhikara,
Davanagere.
10 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Residing at No.28, Devaraj Urs
Badavane, 2nd Cross,
'B' Block, Davanagere.
32. Smt.G.E.Shashikala
Eshwarappa
Aged about 60 years
Ex-Member,
Davanagere Harihara Urban
Development Authority
Residing at No.2035/35,
8th Cross, Anjaneya Extension
Davanagere
33. Sri G.N.Hanumanthappa
(DEAD)
35. Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi
W/o Dr.Omkarappa
Aged about 69 years
Retired District Health and
Family Welfare Officer,
Davanagere District and
Member of Site Allotment
Committee,
Davanagere Harihara Urban
Development Authority
Davanagere
Residing at Taralabalu
Extension, "Dhruthi",
13th Cross, Davanagere
Date of offence FIRs registered on the basis of
totally 23 PCRs in No.11/13,
15/13, 16/13, 17/13, 22/13,
24/13, 28/13, 30/13, 32/13,
11 Spl.CC No.489/2019
34/13, 36/13, 38/13, 40/13,
42/13, 44/13, 46/13, 60/13,
61/13, 62/13, 63/13, 65/13,
66/13 and 67/13 filed District
and Sessions Judge and Special
Court, Davanagere
Date of report of offence As above
Name of the complainant Sri Manikanta Sarkar
S/o Karunakaran
Date of commencement of 27.11.2020
recording of evidence
Date of closing of 11.03.2025
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.198 and 420 of IPC, Sec.8,
13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused are found not guilty
State represented by By learned Special Public
Prosecutor
Accused represented by Sri. Nagaraja H.H., Advocate for A1
Sri R.Nagendra Naik, Advocate for A2
Sri G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for
A-3, 14 to 16, 27, 29 and 30
Sri S.V.Bhojaraja, Advocate for A4 to
6 & 20
Sri Siddartha B.Muchandi, Advocate
for A8, 17 to 19, 26, 28
Sri Govardhan, Advocate for A9 to 11
Sri Thukaramappa Arani, Advocate
for A12
Sri Akashkiran.S.V., Advocate for
A13
12 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Sri Shashidhara.M., Advocate for A21
Sri. Manjunatha.P, Advocate for A22
& 25
Sri H.K.Naghabhushan, Advocate for
A23
Sri.G.Govinda Gowda, Advocate for
A24
Sri.M.K.Hiremath, Advocate for A31
Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for
A32
Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate for
A35
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayuktha, Davanagere, has filed the charge-sheet
against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sec.198, 420 of IPC and under Sec.8,
13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Protection of Corruption Act
1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act‘).
2. The genesis of the above case is that, a private
complaint came to filed by one Sri.Manikanta, alleging of
irregularities in the allotment of sites by the Davanagere-
Harihara Urban Development Authority (DHUDA in
short). It is the case of complainant that about 507 sites
13 Spl.CC No.489/2019
were earmarked for allotment to various persons in
J.H.Patel extension of various dimensions. In pursuance
of the same, the DHUDA Authority had called for paper
notification, which was published duly through various
newspapers on 24.03.2008, 19.09.2009 and 29.12.2009.
Thereafter, totally 2053 applications were received and
about 1038 applications came to be rejected. Thereafter,
about 1015 applications were placed before the Sub-
Committee formed towards allotment of sites and
thereafter a report was obtained which initially it was
resolved to make the allotment by picking-up lottery,
however, later on it was decided by the Sub-Committee
as well as the Main Committee not to go for allotment by
way of lottery system. On the basis of the
recommendations made by the Sub-Committee,
necessary allotment of sites being made. It is the
contention of the complainant that a partisan attitude
was leveled by the members of the Sub-Committee which
was headed by the then District In-charge Minister
Mr.S.A.Ravindranath, who has been arrayed as accused
14 Spl.CC No.489/2019
No.30 in the instant case and who had also presided the
Sub-Committee as well as the Main Committee. In brief,
the main allegation leveled is that the accused No.1
Smt.S.Chethana, accused No.2 Smt.S.Swetha, accused
No.3 Smt.M.G.Sonibai, accused No.4 Sri.M.Guddappa,
accused No.5 Sri.R.Dharmanaik, accused No.6
Smt.Sunitha.G, accused No.7 Sri.Prasanna Kumar (case
is abated against him), accused No.8 Dr.J.H.Gowri Bai,
accused No.10 Smt.Sudharani, accused No.11
Sri.M.V.Praveen Kumar, accused No.12 Sri.M.N.Deepak,
accused No.13 Sri.G.S.Hanumantha, accused No.14
Sri.Shivajinaik, accused No.15 Sri.Venkateshwaranaik,
accused No.16 Smt.A.S.Monika, accused No.17
Dr.B.Vasanth Kumar, accused No.18, Dr.B.G.Goutham,
accused No.19 Dr.Sunil S. Byadagi, accused No.20
Smt.Latha, accused No.21 Smt.Netravathi, accused
No.22 Smt.H.M.Mukthambha, accused No.23
Sri.P.P.Aradhya Mutt, accused No.24 Smt. Rajeshwari,
accused No.25 Smt.Manjula, accused No.26 Sri.Nagaraj,
accused No.27 Sri.Suresh.B and accused No.28
15 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Sri.Nijaguna Shivacharya were allotted sites with the
influence and help of the Sub-Committee members i.e.,
accused No.29 Sri.Basavaraja Naik, accused No.30
Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, accused No.31 Sri.Yeshwanth Rao
Jadhav, accused No.32 Smt.G.E.Shashikala
Eshwarappa, accused No.33 Sri.G.N.Hanumanthappa
(case is abated against him) and accused No.35
Dr.B.R.Sumithra Devi.
3. Immediately after presentation of the private
complaint by the complainant Sri.Manikanta, the same
came to be referred by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Davanagere to the Karnataka
Lokayuktha under the provisions of Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
On the basis of the reference being made by the
jurisdictional Lokayuktha Court at Davanagere, the
Karnataka Lokayuktha had registered various FIR’s i.e.,
FIR No.11/2013, FIR Nos.15/2013 to 17/2013, FIR
No.22/2013, FIR No.24/2013, FIR No.28/2013, FIR No.
30/2013, FIR No.32/2013, FIR No.34/2013, FIR No.
36/2013, FIR No.38/2013, FIR No.40/2013, FIR No.
16 Spl.CC No.489/2019
42/2013, FIR No. 44/2013, FIR No. 46/2013, FIR
No.60/2013, FIR No. 61/2013, FIR No. 62/2013, FIR No.
63/2013, FIR No. 65/2013, FIR No. 66/2013 and FIR
No.67/2013. On completion of the investigation, a
common charge-sheet came to be filed against the
aforesaid accused persons. On presentation of the
charge-sheet before the Court, the case came to be
transferred to this Court since Special Court was
established for trial of the criminal cases against the
sitting/former MP’s and MLA’s in the State of Karnataka.
On the basis of the entire materials on record, my
predecessor-in-office was pleased to take necessary
cognizance for the aforesaid offences. The accused
persons were summoned before the Court and in
pursuance of the same, they had appeared before the
Court. The accused had filed necessary discharge
applications which came to be rejected and later on court
had proceeded to frame necessary charges, wherein the
accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
17 Spl.CC No.489/2019
4. The prosecution in order to prove their case,
had examined totally 31 witnesses as PW.1 to 31 and
Ex.P1 to 205 came to be marked on behalf of the
prosecution. During the course of evidence, the
prosecution had filed an application under Sec.216 of
Cr.P.C., seeking for alteration and also for addition of
charges. The said application was resisted by the learned
Counsel for the accused. After hearing both parties on
merits, this Court had allowed the application in part
and had proceeded to frame charge under Sec.420 of
IPC. On completion of the prosecution evidence,
statement of accused persons came to be recorded as
contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the
accused persons have denied all the incriminating
materials available against them and some of the
accused persons have filed written submissions. The
sum and substance of the submissions which are made
by the accused persons while recording their statements
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is that they have not
18 Spl.CC No.489/2019
committed any offences and they have been falsely
implicated in the above case.
5. The Court has heard the learned Special
Public Prosecutor Sri.S.S.Hiremath at length. It is the
submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that
totally 507 sites were available for allotment, which were
in deed allotted to the present accused persons as well
as other persons. It is the submission of the learned
Special Public Prosecutor that the aforesaid accused
persons though they were not eligible for allotment of
sites, had obtained allotment by exerting their influence
over the members of the Sub-Committee. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor has also brought to the notice
of the Court that the accused persons had filed a false
declaration before the DHUDA Authorities along with
their application by contending that they were not
owning any sites or any immovable properties in the
State of Karnataka which was indeed contrary to the
claim. Since the sites were to be allotted to the persons
who were landless and who were not being allotted site
19 Spl.CC No.489/2019
according to the Karnataka Urban Development
Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1991, the allotment
made in favour of the accused persons were per-say
illegal. It has also been vehemently submitted by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor that immediately after
scrutinizing the applications, the same were placed
before the Sub-Committee. It is his submission that
certain yardstick was prepared by the Members of the
Sub-Committee, wherein it was decided that certain
points were awarded to the applicants on the basis of
their marital status, their responsibility towards their
family members which is based on the total number of
members available in the family, owning of immovable
properties etc., by them. It is argued that even though
some of the applicants had obtained zero points, they
were allotted with sites by the Sub-Committee by
ignoring the fact that some other eligible persons were
entitled for allotment. The learned Special Public
Prosecutor has also argued that merely the ineligible
persons or the persons who were not allotted with sites
20 Spl.CC No.489/2019
have not challenged the allotment of sites, that does not
indicate that the allotment process was valid and fair. In
order to buttress his submission, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has taken this court through the
Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee and which is
more fully placed at Ex.P205. The learned Special Public
Prosecutor by pointing out the possession of the
applicants/accused persons argued that though they
were obtained zero points and were standing down below
the line in their specific category, the Authorities had
proceeded to allot sites for them. Under these
circumstances, it is his submission that the entire
allotment of sites were illegal and contrary to the settled
position of law. By pointing out the said infirmities, he
has argued that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt with respect to filing of false
declaration and also allotment of sites. Accordingly, he
has sought for convicting the accused persons.
6. Per contra, Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned
Counsel appearing for accused No.2 has taken this
21 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Court to various facets of the above case. It is his
submission that the application of provision of Sec.198
of IPC itself is not applicable to the case on hand. In
order to substantiate his contention, he has argued at
length that the provision of Sec.198 of IPC pertains to
issuance of Certificate. However, in the instant case, it is
alleged that certain declarations were filed by the
applicants along with their application seeking for
allotment. The question which is required to be
appreciated is whether the declaration in the form of
affidavit filed by the applicant in the application can be
construed as Certificate filed before a public authority.
By pointing out the same, he has argued that the
provision of Sec.198 of IPC, itself cannot be applied. The
other limb of submission which is being made by the
learned counsel is that the investigation authorities have
not clearly indicated the manner in which the accused
persons had allegedly colluded with the Members of the
Sub-Committee. It is his submission that unless the
provision of Sec.120(B) of IPC, is pressed into service,
22 Spl.CC No.489/2019
there cannot be any conviction being rendered by
invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
If the prosecution is unable to establish that the accused
persons had allegedly came in contact with the then
District In-charge Minister or the Members of the Sub-
Committee, the conviction cannot be sustained. He has
also argued at length that the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c)
of Prevention of Corruption Act are very much akin to
the provisions of Sec.406 and 409 of IPC. However, in
order to attract the provisions of Sec.406 and 409 of IPC,
necessary entry is required to be made. Even otherwise,
the provision of Sec.8 in the above case also not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Further the learned counsel has argued that the
Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation only
in pursuance of the prayer which is made in the private
complaint. In fact, the Investigating Officer who had
summoned the entire materials and also had an
opportunity to scrutinize the application form of the
eligible and ineligible applicants including the persons
23 Spl.CC No.489/2019
who were not allotted with sites. The learned counsel has
also referred to the provision of Sec.3(3) of the General
Clauses Act, wherein the word ‘Affidavit’ is defined and
on the basis of the same he has argued that whether
cancellation/forfeiture of site could be construed as
illegal act or offence as contemplated under Sec.198 of
IPC. In order to buttress his submission, he has referred
to the allotment letter and as per Clause-6 of the
allotment letter, which is similar to Clause-11 of the
advertisement, and has submitted that there was no
indication that the allottees should not own any
immovable properties. It is his submission that only in
the event of allottees obtaining prior allotment from any
Government agencies, Housing Development Authorities
or any other Authority, they would be considered as
ineligible for the purpose of allotment. In this regard, he
has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2018)17 SCC (732) (Babji Vs. State of
Andra Pradesh), with respect to attracting the provisions
of Sec.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Lastly, the
24 Spl.CC No.489/2019
learned Counsel has fortified his submissions by
pointing out to the cross-examination of the Investigating
Officer that is PW.31 Mr.Shankar M. Ragi and has
argued at length that the Investigating Officer has failed
to ascertain the fact about the person who has prepared
the Resolution was the person who has drawn the
proceedings. It is also argued that the Investigating
Officer has not made any efforts to ascertain whether the
Member of the Board/Sub-Committee had exercised
discretionary power towards the allotment of sites. He
has also argued that even the Secretary of the Authority
was not at all examined. Before concluding it is his
submission that, Rule-12 of KUDA (Allotment of Site)
Rules speaks about ineligibility towards allotment of
sites. The words and proviso which speaks about
ineligibility cannot be construed to indicate any of the
positive act to be made towards the allotment of sites.
By considering the notification, it is crystal clear that the
allotment was not made as a free site or a site allotted at
concessional rate and at best it would be held that
25 Spl.CC No.489/2019
allottees had obtained site wherein the site had a
marketable title deed free from any infirmities. By
pointing out the said aspects, he has argued that the
impugned allotment of sites was in accordance with the
law and in no way the provisions of Section mentioned
above could be attracted.
7. The learned Counsels for the other accused
persons have adopted the submissions made by the
learned counsel for accused No.2 and all the aforesaid
accused persons have relied upon various authorities,
which are as follows;
(1980) 3 SCC 110 in the case of Abdulla
Mohammed Pagarkar Vs. State (Union Territory of
Goa, Daman and Diu)
(1996) 10 SCC 193 (C.Chenga Reddy and others
Vs. State of A.P.)
(2016) 12 SCC 273 (A.Sivaprakash Vs. State of
Kerala)
(2005) 12 SCC 631: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 686: 2005
SCC OnLine SC 1544 (K.R.Purushottam Vs. State
of Kerala)
(2009) 8 SCC 617 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Sheetal A. Sahai and others)
26 Spl.CC No.489/2019
AIR 2022 SC 3050 (Surendranath and another
Vs. State of Kerala)
Unreported Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Madras in the case of
A.Lakshmanan Vs. State rep: by The Inspector of
Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore
in Crl.O.P.No.8714/2024 and Crl.M.P.
No.6271/2024 decided on 28.6.2024
(2013) 1 SCC 205 (C.K.Jaffer Sharief Vs. State
(through CBI)
8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and
perused materials on record. The points that would arise
for my consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to
6, 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 19, 21 to 28 along
with the deceased accused No.7 and
33, had intentionally filed false
declaration by stating that they were
not owning any immovable properties
in their names which was believed to
be false and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Sec.198 of
Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the aforesaid
27 Spl.CC No.489/2019accused persons in order to obtain
allotment of sites at Sri J.H.Patel
Extension from Davanagere-Harihara
Urban Development Authority with
dishonest intention, had induced the
committee members through the then
District In-charge Minister accused
No.30 Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, who had
obtained allotment of sites though they
were ineligible for the same and had
not obtained requisite points towards
the allotment and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Sec.420 of
Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that accused
No.30 to 32 and 35 had promised to
give an advantage to accused No.1 to 6,
9, 10, 11, 13, 20 and 23 being the
public servants to reward for improper
performance of public duty and
thereby committed offence punishable
under Sec.8 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused
28 Spl.CC No.489/2019No.30 to 32 and 35 being the public
servants had dishonestly committed
criminal misconduct by influencing the
DUDHA Authorities to allot sites and
thereby had committed an offence
punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
1988?
5) What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative
Point No.5: As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 4: As these points are inter-
connected, all the points are taken together for
discussion. The facts in narrow compass before
adverting to the materials produced in this case is that,
the DUDHA Authorities had called for application for
allotment of 507 Sites at Sri J.H.Patel Extension,
29 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Davanagere and the condition which was imposed in the
application was that the applicant should not be allotted
with sites by Governmental Agency or any other
Authorities. In pursuance of the same, nearly 2053
applications were filed, out of which, allotment was made
in favour of the present accused persons also. It is
noticed on records that subsequently a private complaint
came to be filed by PW.1 Sri.Manikanta Sarkar, who had
alleged that several ineligible persons were allotted with
the sites. He has also submitted that the allotment of
sites had taken place due to the influence exerted by
accused No.30 Sri.S.A.Ravindranath, who was the then
District In-charge Minister along with his cronies who
was made as Members of the Allotment Committee and
Sub-Committee. On the basis of the private complaint
being filed, the jurisdictional Court had referred the
complaint to the Karnataka Lokayuktha for investigation
and to file report under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On
culmination of the investigation, the Investigating Agency
had found that the members of the Committee and Sub-
30 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Committee had flouted the rules and regulations which
they were required to be followed towards allotment of
sites and had allotted sites in favour of ineligible
applicants i.e., the present accused persons. As such, a
final report came to be filed.
11. The main aspect which is required to be
determined by this Court is with respect to entertaining
of dishonest intention and also filing of false declaration
as contemplated under Sec.198 of IPC. Prior to
determining the same, it would be appropriate to
recapitulate the entire evidence which is led by the
prosecution in the above case. The prosecution in order
to prove the case has examined 31 witnesses as PW.1 to
31.
12. PW.1 Sri. Vasudeva C.S., is the Panchayath
Development Officer who has deposed that on
05.07.2013 he was summoned to the office of the
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Davanagere, to be a Panch
witness and later on they had visited the DUDHA office
31 Spl.CC No.489/2019
and has met CW.33 Sri. Achyutha Murthy and also
Shivanna Huligemmanavar and had recovered
documents under the Mahazar at Ex.P1. It is his
evidence that on 06.07.2013, he had once again visited
the office and in his presence several records pertaining
to the accused were recovered under the Mahazar at
Ex.P2 to 6. He has identified the said documents.
During the course of cross-examination, nothing much
has been elicited from him.
13. PW.2 Manikanta Sarkar is the complainant
who has reiterated the allegations which he has leveled
in his private complaint and he has also identified his
complaint which was marked before this Court as Ex.P7
to 52 along with the copy of private complaint. He was
also subjected to cross-examination and he has
categorically admitted that no other persons who were
not allotted with the sites had challenged the allotment
of site process. Apart from that, nothing much has been
elicited from him.
32 Spl.CC No.489/2019
14. PW.3 Sri. Sunil Kumar.J., is the mahazar
witness in whose presence the documents were
recovered from the DHUDA office. During the course of
cross-examination, nothing much has been elicited from
him.
15. PW.4 Sri.H.T.Veeranjaneya, PW.5 Smt.P.S.
Savitha, PW.6 Sri.Somashekar.N and PW.7
Sri.Thippeswamy.N are the mahazar witnesses who were
present during the recovery of documents pertaining to
the aforesaid accused persons in the DHUDA office.
Nothing much was elicited from them during the course
of cross-examination.
16. PW.8 Sri.Sathish D.P., is the Senior Sub-
Registrar who has deposed of furnishing documents
pertaining to the immovable properties standing in the
name of Sri.A.S.Mruthyunjaya as per Ex.P71 to 78.
17. PW.9 Sri.Abhijith V.C. is the PDO of Alur Hatti
Village Panchayath at Davanagere and has deposed of
producing documents pertaining to the properties
33 Spl.CC No.489/2019
standing in the name of Smt.Sonibai, Sri. Basavaraja
Naik and Late.Manya Naik and he has further deposed
that after examining the materials he has produced the
documents as per Ex.P79 to 84.
18. PW.10 Sri.Achyutha Murthy K.A., is the
Stenographer at DHUDA and he has deposed of assisting
the Investigating Agency by producing the documents in
nearly 23 cases.
19. PW.11 Dr.N.Mahanthesh is the Deputy
Commissioner of Davanagere Municipal Corporation and
has deposed of producing documents pertaining to
Smt.Shwetha, wherein he has furnished about 4 Khatha
Extracts and also of furnishing documents of Basavaraja
Naik, Guddappa, Dharma Naik, M.N.Deepak,
G.S.Hanumamthappa, Kum.A.S.Monika, Mruthyunjaya,
Dr.B.Vasanth Kumar, M.K.Nethravathi, Dr.Manjula,
D.Nagaraju, Smt.Renuka and Sri.Nijaguna Shivacharya.
During the course of cross-examination, nothing much
was elicited from him.
34 Spl.CC No.489/2019
20. PW.12 Sri.H.S.Gandhi, is the Sub-Registrar of
Chennagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, who has deposed
of producing documents pertaining to Mr.M.V.Praveen
Kumar and Smt.H.G.Sudharani. During the course of
cross-examination, nothing much was elicited from him.
21. PW.13 Sri.Ravindra Gowda is the Senior Sub-
Registrar at Davanagere and has deposed of producing
documents pertaining to Sri.G.S.Hanumanthappa.
22. PW.14 Sri.K.Nagaraj is the Revenue Officer of
Davanagere Municipal Corporation and it is his evidence
that on 25.07.2015 he was requested by the
Investigating Officer to produce Katha extract pertaining
to Door No.2489/1 and 1968/1, which he had produced
as per Ex.P132 to 136.
23. PW.15 Sri.Ningappa H. Kummannanavar is
the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and has
deposed that on 06.04.2015, he was requested to furnish
the documents pertaining to accused No.23 Sri.
Panchaksharaiah Aradhya Mutt and on verification he
35 Spl.CC No.489/2019
had produced the Assessment Register Extract as per
Ex.P138 and 139.
24. PW.16 Smt.V.Rukmini is the Revenue Officer
at Davanagere Municipal Corporation and has deposed
of verifying the records with respect to properties being
owned by Mr.Gowtham S/o Basavaraju and on
verification no properties were standing in his name and
accordingly he had furnished the information as per
Ex.P140 and 141.
25. PW.17 Sri.Lakshman Kumar is the Revenue
Officer at Tumkur Municipal Corporation and has
deposed of receiving a requisition from Karnataka
Lokayuktha to ascertain the immovable properties
standing in the name of Smt.Chethana and
Srikantaswamy and also of their family members. On
verification, he had produced the materials as per
Ex.P143.
26. PW.18 Sri.C.K.Basavarajappa, had worked as
SDA at DHUDA and has deposed of preparing a check-
36 Spl.CC No.489/2019
list over the applications received by them towards the
allotment of sites and he had prepared the check-list of
Smt.Sunitha as per Ex.P155 and also of Vasantha
Kumar at Ex.P156, Gowtham at Ex.P157 and another
check-list at Ex.P158 and also the check-list of
Sri.P.P.Aradhya Mutt, Smt.Rajeshwari H.R. and
Nagaraju.T. During the course of cross-examination
nothing much was elicited from him.
27. PW.19 Sri.Anbu Kumar was the
Commissioner of Backward Classes Department and has
deposed that on 19.05.2015, he had received a letter
from the ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, requesting to
accord sanction to prosecute Mr.Dharma Naik, who was
working as Warden at Post Metric Boys Hostel,
Davanagere. Being the Commissioner of Backward
Classes Welfare Department, he was the Competent
Authority to appoint Warden at Metric Boys Hostel,
which was being run by their department and also, they
were empowered to remove the Warden from the service.
It is his evidence that the documents which were
37 Spl.CC No.489/2019
furnished by the concerned authorities pertains to Mr.
Dharma Naik and on perusal of the same, strong prima-
facie materials were made out to prosecute the accused
Dharma Naik and hence he has issued necessary
sanction for prosecuting him on 03.01.2017, which is as
per Ex.P162 under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act as well as under Sec.198 of IPC and Rule
13 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority
(Allotment of Site) Rules, 1991. Apart from denial,
nothing was suggested to him.
28. PW.20 Smt.H.M.Prema had worked as Deputy
Director of Public Instructions, Davanagere and she has
deposed of receiving the requisition from ADGP,
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru on 20.10.2016, to
accord sanction to prosecute Smt.Sunitha.G, Assistant
Teacher, Government High School at Davanagere.
Further she has deposed that accused No.6 Smt.Sunitha
had obtained site illegally at Sri J.H.Patel Extension,
Davanagere and since the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet
and other documents, she was convinced about the
38 Spl.CC No.489/2019
necessary materials to prosecute her and accordingly she
had accorded sanction to prosecute her as per Ex.P163.
Apart from denial, nothing was elicited from her during
the course of her cross-examination.
29. PW.21 A.Allabhakshi had worked as Senior
Assistant at BESCOM, Davanagere and had deposed of
being mahazar witness along with CW.5 Shanmukhappa.
It is his evidence that they had visited DHUDA office on
03.08.2013 and had collected documents under the
mahazar at Ex.P164 and 165.
30. PW.22 Sri.Venkateshwarappa Gaddad, is the
Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning at
Davanagere and he had deposed that a layout was
developed at J.H.Patel Extension, wherein they had
intended to allot sites to the eligible persons. Further he
has deposed that in order to make the allotment, a Sub-
Committee consisting of Chairman and 4 other members
were formed, wherein the Commissioner of DHUDA had
proposed to allot the sites on the basis of picking up
39 Spl.CC No.489/2019
lottery. However, the Sub-Committee had descended to
the same on the ground that the eligible persons may not
be provided with allotment of sites and hence on
08.10.2010, a Sub-Committee had prepared a list and
had submitted to the meeting convened by the DHUDA
Authority. Further he has deposed being part of the
meeting and also affixing signature to the Resolution
passed with respect to the allotment of site.
31. PW.23 Sri.Eranna had worked as Under
Secretary at Labour Department, wherein he has
deposed of receiving FIR, charge-sheet, statement of
witnesses and report of the Investigating Officer from
ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha with a request to accord
sanction to prosecute Mr.Suresh. On perusal of the
records, it indicated the necessity to lodge prosecution
against Mr.Suresh and accordingly he had granted
sanction to prosecute him as per Ex.P166.
32. PW.24 Sri.Manjegowda is also Under
Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department
40 Spl.CC No.489/2019
of Health and Family Welfare and has deposed that he
had received a requisition from ADGP, Karnataka
Lokayuktha on 20.10.2016 to accord sanction to
prosecute Dr.B.Vasantha Kumar, who worked as Taluk
Medical Officer at Doddapete, Davanagere. It is his
evidence that the accused had sworn to a false affidavit
in order to obtain an allotment in his name and as per
the records, necessary materials were found and
accordingly he had permitted for prosecuting the
accused person as per his Report and Notification at
Ex.P167.
33. PW.25 Smt.Shwetha is the Junior Engineer
working at DHUDA and deposed that she was directed
by the Manager of the Authority to scrutinize the
application and accordingly she had scrutinized the
same. It is her evidence that the application consisted of
the requirement to provide necessary address, marital
status, persons depending on them and whether they
belong to any category or quota wherein the Government
41 Spl.CC No.489/2019
is taking care. She has also identified preparing the
check-list as per Ex.P168 to 171.
34. PW.26 Sri.K.C.Purushotham had conducted
partial investigation and has deposed of receiving the
directions from the jurisdictional court under Sec.156(3)
of Cr.P.C., and in furtherance of the same he had
registered the complaint as per Ex.P172 to 175.
35. PW.27 Sri.M.P.Ramesh has deposed that he
was requested to be mahazar witness in the office of
DHUDA and as such he had accompanied the officials on
08.07.2013 to DHUDA office and in his presence,
documents pertaining to Mr.Gudappa, Dharma Naik and
Sunitha were recovered under the mahazar at Ex.P176
to 179.
36. PW.28 Sri.C.B.Patil had conducted partial
investigation and has deposed of registering the FIR’s on
the basis of the directions issued by the jurisdictional
Court and also, he has deposed of visiting the DHUDA
42 Spl.CC No.489/2019
office and of recovering various documents under several
mahazars.
37. PW.29 Sri.S.T.Wodeyar had conducted the
further investigation.
38. PW30 Sri.S.C.Manjappa and PW.31 Sri.
Shankar M. Ragi are the Investigating Officers who had
conducted the investigation and had filed the final report
before the jurisdictional Court. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.31, the learned counsel for the
accused No.2 has elicited that he had not verified the
allotment rules prior to conducting the investigation and
he has also admitted that he had not inquired about the
person who had prepared the notice of the Sub-
Committee. He has also admitted the suggestion that as
per the Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Site)
Rules, the definition of Family consists of husband, wife,
minor children and depending parents. He has also
admitted that there were no rules for according grades as
mentioned in the Sub-Committee. Further it is his
43 Spl.CC No.489/2019
admission that in general category totally 51 sites were
available, out of which 83 persons had secured 2 points
and no yardstick was prepared for considering the
seniority. In the further cross-examination the witness
has admitted that he has not verified and examined the
reasons for fixing specific points by the Sub-Committee
to the applicants who had sought for allotment of sites.
He has also admitted that he had not enquired the
accused persons with respect to allotment of sites nor he
had examined the Commissioner of DHUDA who was
very much present during the course of discussion for
allotment of sites.
39. As could be noticed from the records, the
DHUDA had called for allotment of sites at Sri J.H.Patel
Extension. It is also relevant to note that initially the
Notification came be challenged before the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka and thereafter a subsequent
notification was passed on 19.09.2009. Even otherwise
when the entire Notification is looked into, it indicates
that several categories of sites were to be allotted to
44 Spl.CC No.489/2019
different eligible applicants. In short, the sites were
earmarked towards the persons belonging to weaker
sections in the society, general category, State
Government Employees category and other categories. It
is also relevant to note that certain stipulations came to
be imposed in the notification which required the
applicants to meet the same. The main bone of
contention in the above case with respect to non-
compliance of the stipulated conditions which was
issued by the Authority at the time of allotment of sites.
The main stipulations which have been pressed into
service in the instant case is at Sl.No.7, which required
that the applicants who were seeking for allotment
should not be allotted with any site either in his name or
in the name of his spouse, family members, or
dependent either from Governmental Agencies or from
Urban Development Authority. In other words, the
intention of DHUDA was to ensure that the provisions
and rules as enumerated under the Karnataka Urban
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991,
45 Spl.CC No.489/2019
was to be complied with. It is noticed from the records
that along with the application, the applicants were also
required to file necessary affidavit wherein they were
required to state about the allotment of sites if any or the
immovable properties which were standing in their
name. The learned counsel for the accused persons has
vehemently argued that in all the applications which are
before this court, it can be noticed that the affidavit
which has been filed is in a similar manner. In other
words, it is their contention that a model draft affidavit
was furnished which was filled by the applicants and
submitted to the authorities. The aforesaid submissions
are being made in order to indicate that the accused
persons do not entertain any malafide intention or an
intention to defraud the Government authorities. In
order better appreciate the same, the Court has carefully
appreciated the entire materials which are placed before
this Court and also the allegations which are leveled
against the applicants. As could be noticed from the
46 Spl.CC No.489/2019
records, the main allegations which are leveled against
the accused can be culled out into three categories;
a) The applicants had filed a false
declaration by way of affidavit even
though they were owning immovable
properties in their name or in the name
of their family members.
b) Some of the applicants/accused
persons though were not eligible were
allotted with sites by DHUDA
Authorities suppressing the
applications of the other applicants,
who were otherwise eligible.
c) The then District In-charge Minister
along with the members of the Sub-
Committee had played overt and
positive act towards illegal allotment
of sites to the accused persons.
40. If these aforesaid contentions to be analyzed,
the first contention pertains to filing of false affidavit
before the court, wherein the prosecution alleges that
provision under Sec.198 of IPC is attracted. For the sake
of convenience and brevity, the provisions of Sec.198 of
IPC is extracted hereunder, which reads as follows;
47 Spl.CC No.489/2019
“Sec.198. Using as true a certificate
known to be false. Whoever
corruptly uses or attempts to use
any such certificate as a true
certificate, knowing the same to be
false in any material point, shall be
punished in the same manner as if
he gave false evidence.”
41. The opening words of the aforesaid provision
would indicate that a Certificate which is known to be
false is being issued by a person to use the same as an
important material piece of evidence in a case pending.
If the provision is carefully appreciated, the question
which requires to be answered is whether Certificate can
be considered in par with the Affidavit. In order to better
appreciate the same, the main difference between the
same is required to be considered. Normally Certificate is
defined as “Generally a formal document issued by a
competent authority certifying a fact. It carries a
presumption of authenticity and is often required as
primary evidence. However, sometimes certificates
may not be available due to legal or practical
reasons.” Whereas Affidavit in normal parlance is
48 Spl.CC No.489/2019
defined as “A sworn statement made by a person before
an authority, affirming certain facts. It is used as
evidence, especially when certificates are unavailable
or in interlocutory proceedings. Affidavits may provide
prima facie proof but may be subject to cross-
examination or further scrutiny.” That apart as per
General Clauses Act, 1897, Sec.3(3) defines Affidavit as:
“[3(3) “affidavit” shall include
affirmation and declaration in the case
of persons by law allowed to affirm or
declare instead of swearing;”
42. When both are juxtaposed and considered,
the fact which emerges is that the affidavit is nothing but
affirmation and declaration given by the persons who
vouchsafe to the contents of the same. Whereas in the
case of certificates it is normally a document issued by
competent authorities. In the instant case, the
affirmation and declaration was given by the applicants
towards fact that they were not allotted with any sites by
Government or any other urban development authorities.
That apart, the underlying aspect which is to be
49 Spl.CC No.489/2019
appreciated is the aspect of knowledge which each
person is entertaining at the time of filing of a Certificate
which he admittedly knows to be a false Certificate and
also the intention/motive is required to be pointed out to
indicate that he had entertained such a motive to
commit an offence. In other words the underlying factor
is inclusion of the word “Corruptly” in the definition of
section 198 of Indian Penal code. What could be
discerned is that mens rea is the essential part in order
to commit the offence. In this regard the court has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3364 (Vimalakka Ramappa Koli v.
State of Karnataka) wherein it is held as:
7. As there is no finding recorded that
the ingredients of the offences alleged
have been proved, the order of
conviction passed by the Sessions Court
cannot be sustained. Section 198 of
the IPC reads thus:
“198. Using as true a certificate known
to be false.–Whoever corruptly uses or
attempts to use any such certificate as
a true certificate, knowing the same to
be false in any material point, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he
gave false evidence.”
50 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(Underline supplied)
The Section used the word “corruptly”.
Therefore, it is obvious that mens rea is
an essential ingredient of the offence.
Only because the appellant could not
establish her caste claim before the
Committee, one cannot conclude that
the appellant corruptly used the caste
certificate. Moreover, corruptly using
the certificate is not sufficient. The
accused must have knowledge that the
certificate is false. The allegation that
the certificate is false to the knowledge
of the appellant must be proved by the
prosecution.
43. The aforesaid authority clearly indicates that
mens rea is the integral part to establish the provision of
Section 198 of Indian Penal code and further when there
is an allegation of commission of offence under section
420 of IPC both should be juxtaposed and considered.
When the provision of Sec.198 of IPC is juxtaposed with
the provision of Sec.420 of IPC, since the aforesaid
charge was subsequently added by this Court during the
course of trial, the fact which requires to be established
by the prosecution is the accused persons had
entertained a dishonest intention to cheat and defraud
the DHUDA Authorities and in furtherance of the same
51 Spl.CC No.489/2019
they had filed a Certificate in the form of an Affidavit
contending that they were not owning any sites or
immovable property either in their name or in the name
of their family members and the said Certificate/Affidavit
was the basis for allotment of sites to the applicants. In
other words, a dishonest intention was to be displayed
by the accused persons right from the inception and the
same had made the authorities i.e., the DHUDA
authorities to deliver the property in the form of
allotment of sites.
44. As could be noticed, the provision of Sec.420 of
IPC comprises of two parts, wherein in the first part the
dishonest intention is required to be proved and in the
second part delivery of property is required to be
established by the prosecution in order to bring home the
guilt of the accused persons. In order to better appreciate
the same, it would be appropriate to cull out the
allegations made against the accused persons by
scrutinizing with the documents which is submitted by
them. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that
52 Spl.CC No.489/2019
allegations are made against some of the accused persons
of furnishing false affidavits and against some of the
accused persons it is alleged that they had obtained the
allotment of sites though they were not having sufficient
points by the Sub-Committee. In order to consider the
same, the allegations in brief are culled out as follows:
Sl. Name of the Accused and
Allegation in brief Exhibits
No. Ranking
1. A-1 Smt.S.Chethana Filing of false Ex.P.2
affidavit
2. A-2 Smt.S.Swetha Filing of false Ex.P.3
affidavit
3. A-3 Smt.M.G.Sonibai Filing of false Ex.P.4
affidavit
4. A-4 Sri M.Guddappa Filing of false Ex.P.177
affidavit
5. A-5 Sri R.Dharma Naik Filing of false Ex.P.178
affidavit
6. A-6 Smt.Sunitha.G. Filing of false Ex.P.179
affidavit
7. A-7 Sri.Prasanna Kumar G.S -- --
(DEAD)
8. A-8 Dr. J.H.Gowri Bai Filing of false Ex.P.169
affidavit
9. A-9 Sri K.M.Virupakshappa Influenced the --
@ Madal Virupakshappa Committee
Members to allot
sites for his
daughter and son
arrayed as A.10
and 11
53 Spl.CC No.489/2019
10. A-10 Smt.Sudharani H.J. Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
11. A-11 Sri M.V.Praveen Kumar Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
12. A-12 Sri M.N.Deepak Filing of false Ex.P.170
affidavit
13. A-13 Sri G.S.Hanumantha Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
14. A-14 Sri Shivajinaik P.T. Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
15. A-15 Sri Venkateshwara Obtained sites --
Naik due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
16. A-16 Smt.A.S.Monika Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
17. A-17 Dr. B.Vasanth Kumar Obtained sites Ex.P.156
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
18. A-18 Dr. B.G.Goutham Obtained sites Ex.P.157
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
19. A-19 Dr.Sunil. S. Byadagi Obtained sites --
due to influence
exerted on sub
committee
20. A-20 Smt.Latha Obtained sites --
due to influence
54 Spl.CC No.489/2019
exerted on sub
committee
21. A-21 Smt. Netravathi N.K Filing of false Ex.P.158
affidavit
22. A-22 Smt.H.M.Mukthambha Filing of false Ex.P.180 FIR
affidavit
23. A-23 Sri P.P.Aradhya Mutt Filing of false Ex.P.181 FIR
affidavit
24. A-24 Smt.Rajeshwari Filing of false Ex.P.182 FIR
affidavit
25. A-25 Smt. Manjula Filing of false Ex.P.183 FIR
affidavit
26. A-26 Sri Nagaraj.T Filing of false Ex.P.184 FIR
affidavit
27. A-27 Sri Suresh.B. Filing of false Ex.P.185 FIR
affidavit
28. A-28 Sri Nijaguna Filing of false Ex.P.187
Shivacharya affidavit Mahazar and
Ex.P.186 FIR
29. A-29 Sri Basavarajanaik.M Filing of false --
affidavit
30. A-30 Sri S.A.Ravindranath The then District --
In-charge Minister
with allegation of
influencing the
Committee
Members
31. A-31 Sri Yeshwanth Rao Chairman of the --
Jadhav Sub-Committee
32. A-32 Smt.G.E.Shashikala Committee --
Eshwarappa Member
33. A-33 Sri -- --
G.N.Hanumanthappa
(DEAD)
55 Spl.CC No.489/2019
35. A-35 Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi Committee --
Member
45. On carefully appreciating the entire chart
which gives an explanation about the case of prosecution
along with the provisions of law invoked against them,
firstly the prosecution is required to establish that the
applicants had filed necessary application before the
DHUDA seeking for allotment of site with a malafide
intention. As noticed from the records, the provision of
Sec.198 of IPC can be made applicable only when a false
Certificate is issued by the concerned person to use the
same as evidence before a public Authority. In the earlier
portion of my judgment, already I have held that the
difference with respect to the Certificate vis-a-vis
Declaration and Affidavit. Here in the case on hand, the
Affidavit has been annexed along with the application.
Even otherwise for the sake of arguments, the Affidavit
which is filed by the applicants is considered as a
Certificate, then the Court is required to consider
whether any illegality is committed by the parties. In the
56 Spl.CC No.489/2019
first instance it is noticed that all the applicants have
sworn to a similar type of affidavit. In this regard, it was
suggested during the course of cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer that a model format was furnished
by the DHUDA Authorities and the same was admitted
by the witnesses. If for the sake of arguments, the same
has been construed as true and correct, then the next
aspect which requires determination is whether any false
statement is made by the applicant. For the sake of
convenience, the contents of the application in one of the
applications is extracted which is annexed along with the
application of accused No.1 Smt.Chethana at Ex.P2 is
extracted, which reads as follows;
2. ನನಗಾಗಲೀ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನಿಗೆ ಆಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ನನ್ನ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಯಾರಿಗೇ ಆಗಲಿ, ದಾವಣೆಗೆರೆ – ಹರಿಹರ ನಗರಾಭಿವೃದ್ದಿ
ಪ್ರಾ ಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ
ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ 1959 ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಆಗಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇೆ
ಸಂಘದಿಂದ ಆಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಇತರೇ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳಿಂದಾಗಲೀ
ಯಾವುದೇ ನಿವೇಶನ ಅಥವಾ ಮನೆ ಮಂಜೂರು ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಹಾಗೂ ಅಂತಹ ಸೊತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪಾಲೂ ಸಹಾ
ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಪ್ರಮಾಣೀಕರಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.
46. The averments indicate that accused No.1
Chethana had sworn that neither herself or her husband
57 Spl.CC No.489/2019
or any other family members were allotted site by the
DHUDA or any Co-operative Societies under the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 or any other
Registered Societies or Organizations. The very same
aspect has been sworn by all the applicants in the above
case. The prosecution is unable to point out that the
applicants had obtained the allotment on the basis of
such Declaration, inspite of being allotted with sites at
the earlier instance. Though the Investigating Officer has
collected plethora of documents, the same indicates of
purchasing of site by some of the parties and in some
other instance owning of house or devolution of property
of ancestors in the family. In order to better understand
the exact provision of law, it would be worthwhile to refer
to the provisions of KUDA Act, 1987. As per the
provision mentioned in Rule 12(2) of KUDA (Allotment
of Sites) Rules, 1991 (‘KUDA Rules’ for short). For the
purpose of convenience, the said provision is culled
out which reads as under:-
58 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Rule 12 - Disqualification for allotment of sites; (1)....
(2) Any person shall be eligible for
allotment of site if said person has
been allotted a site or house in any
part of the State by any other Urban
Development Authority or KHB or any
other agency of the Government”
Apart from that the relevant
provision which would be applied for
considering the application has been
narrated in Rule 13 of the KUDA
Rules which is extracted and reads as
follows:
Rule 13 of KUDA (Allotment of Sites)
Rules, 1991
13. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀ DAiÉÄÌ
¤ÃwUÀ¼ÀÄ.
(1) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâCfðzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
UÀÄuÁªÀUÀÄtUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÉÄÌ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°è F ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
zÀȶÖAiÀÄ°èj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÉʪÁ»PÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À ಎಂzÀgÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ
«ªÁ»vÀ£É CxÀªÁ E®èªÉªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß
ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ£ÉÃ, E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ E§âjVAvÀPÀrªÉÄ
fêÀAvÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ
ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÁæzsÁ£ÀåvɤÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ;
2) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À ªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV CzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄ£É
PànÖ¸ÀĪÀ CªÀ£À ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð:
59 Spl.CC No.489/2019
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, F µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ eÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ §ÄqÀPÀlÄÖUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ
¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝಲ್ಲಃ
3) xxxxx.)
4) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ F »AzÉ
JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj Cfð¹gÀĪÀ£ÉA§ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð¤zÁÝUÀÆå
CªÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð£ÁVzÁÝ£É JA§ÄzÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ;
5) ªÀiÁf ¸ÉʤPÀgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ
ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉêɸÀ°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉʤPÀgÀ
PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ.
(2) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀV£À ««zsÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ
ºÀAZÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(J) »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2% (ಬಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಬುಡಕಟ್ಟು ಗಳು 3% (ಸಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಜಾತಿಗಳು 15%
(ಡಿ) ಮಾಜಿ ಸೈನಿಕರು ಅಥವಾ ಮೃತ ಸೈನಿಕರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ
ಸದಸ್ಯರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಶಸ್ತ್ರ ಪಡೆಯ ಸದಸ್ಯರು 5%
(ಇ) ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿಗಮ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ
ಉದ್ದಿಮೆ ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾ ಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು
10%
(ಎಫ್) ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ
ಉದ್ದಿಮೆ ಗಳು/ನಿಗಮ ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾ ಧಕಾರಗಳ
ನೌಕರರು 5%
(ಜಿ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕು 48%
60 Spl.CC No.489/2019(ಎಚ್) ಕಲೆ, ವಿಜ್ಞಾ ನ, ಕ್ರೀಡೆ ಅಥವಾರ ಇನ್ಯಾ ವುದೇ
ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ಲಾ ಘನೀಯ ಶಾದನೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಿರುವ
ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು 8%
ಐ) ಅಂಗವಿಕಲರು 2%
«ªÀgÀuÉ.– ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è, (J) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ
¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ
§AzÀgÉ DUÀ D ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ°j¹zÀ G½zÀ
¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (©)¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ
¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, DUÀ F
¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV «ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
(¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J), (©)
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ
¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è Cfð ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ DUÀ F
¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV«ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
(f) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
«ªÀgÀuÉUÉ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ.– ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ, ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À,
CAxÀzÉà UÀÄtªÀÄlÖUÀ½gÀĪÀ CfðzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ
ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß aÃn JvÀÄÛªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.
47. When the aforesaid provision is considered,
the same commenced with a non-abstante clause
wherein Rule-12 speaks about disqualification for
allotment of sites. In other words, as per Rule-12(2), the
eligibility indicates that a person shall be eligible for
allotment of site if he is not allotted with a site or house
61 Spl.CC No.489/2019
in any part of the State by any other Urban Development
Authority or Karnataka Housing Board or any other
Agency of the Government. Merely slamming a person
with certain provision of law and furnishing some
documents to indicate that certain properties are
standing in the name of applicant is not suffice to seek
for an order of conviction. Time and again, it has been
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that however grave may
be the suspicion, the law requires proofs beyond
reasonable doubt. In other words, grave suspicion will
not automatically lead to an inference of guilt of the
accused person. I have carefully examined all the
documents which are produced by the Investigating
Agency. The documents pertain to the property standing
in the name of the accused persons and the same does
not indicate that it was allotted by the State Government
or any Agency of the Government, Karnataka Housing
Board or other Urban Development Authorities. Under
these circumstances, the basis for making the
allegations and requesting the Court to indict the
62 Spl.CC No.489/2019
accused persons had entertained malicious intention
right from the inception cannot be accepted and the
contention of attracting the provisions of Sec.198 of IPC
is totally baseless.
48. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to
the provisions of law, wherein the prosecution is
required to establish the accused had a clear knowledge
of the declaration which was going to be a false one and
the same was being used for the purpose of obtaining an
allotment or any benefit. In the instant case, the
prosecution should have proved the fact that the
accused knew that the allotment was being made to
persons who were already owning sites either granted or
allotment by any other Authorities in the State of
Karnataka. Even in one instance the prosecution is
unable to prove the same and as such the question of
entertaining a malafide intention to attract the provision
of Sec.198 does not arise.
63 Spl.CC No.489/2019
49. I have also bestowed my anxious reading with
respect to the allegations leveled against some of the
accused persons who were the members of the Sub-
Committee. The prosecution contends that the then
District In-charge Minister Mr.S.A.Ravindranatha has
exerted pressure on the other Members of the Sub-
Committee as well as the Main Committee towards
allotment of sites. In order to indicate the same, the
prosecution has produced the Resolution which was
passed by the Sub-Committee and later on which was
confirmed by the Main Committee. With respect to the
deliberations that had taken place, the same will be
discussed in the later part of the judgment since the
allegations would attract the provisions of Sec.420 of
IPC. The prosecution also intends to include accused
No.30 S.A.Ravindranath, Yashawantha Rao Jadhav,
Mrs.Sumithra Devi and others who are the members of
the Sub-Committee with that of other accused persons.
I have already discussed supra in order to attract the
ingredients of Sec.420 IPC, mainly dishonest intention
64 Spl.CC No.489/2019
on the part of the applicants is required to be established
which was also entertained by other accused persons.
The question which arises here is who can be considered
as an aggrieved person in the above case. Definitely it
cannot be said that the members of the Sub-Committee
or the Committee can be considered as aggrieved
persons, they were the one who had passed an order
approving the recommendations made by the Sub-
Committee towards allotment of site. In other words, a
delivery of property is required to be proved by the
prosecution and the concept of malafide intention is also
required to be established right from the inception. In
the instant case, the delivery of property by way of
allotment though had taken place, the prosecution is
unable to point out any materials that there was
hatching of conspiracy by the accused themselves.
Unless there was meeting of minds which would attract
the wrath of Sec.420 of IPC r/w Sec.120B of IPC, in my
humble opinion, when several accused persons are
involved in the case, the provision of Sec.420 of IPC
65 Spl.CC No.489/2019
alone cannot be invoked against each individuals. It is
not the case of prosecution that some of the accused
persons who were the beneficiaries in the case on hand,
had met the members of the Committee or the Sub-
Committee. Though it may be argued at length that the
beneficiaries/applicants were related to the members of
the Sub-Committee, once again the question which
requires to be answered is why all the members of the
Sub-Committee have not been arraigned as accused
persons. The records indicate that some of the members
of the Sub-Committee have been left out and whereas in
some instances a member i.e. Dr. Sumithra Devi, who
had attended the meeting on the day the Resolution was
passed has been arraigned as accused. The aforesaid
aspect requires clear answers from the prosecution for
the reasons that she had entertained any malafide
intention right from the inception of the case or she was
arraigned as accused only on the ground that she had
been attended the meeting when the recommendations
has been made. When records indicate that Dr.Sumithra
66 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Devi in her official capacity as District Health Officer has
attended the last meeting, she has affixed her signature
to the recommendations being made. Unless some other
penultimate acts are shown on her part to indicate that
she entertained a malafide intention and in order to
cheat and defraud the Government she had supported
other accused persons in the delivery of property, the
allegations cannot be sustained against her.
50. Now coming to the other aspect, the allegation
which is leveled against the applicants are, the Sub-
Committee had recommended their names though they
were not eligible for allotment of sites. In the instant
case, total number of 507 sites were earmarked for
allotment and in that special classifications were made
with respect to allottees belonging to General Category,
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Ex-Servicemen
quota, State Government Employees quota etc., In each
sector a definite number of sites were reserved and out of
that allotment was required to be made to the persons
belonging to that particular category. The evidence of
67 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Investigating Officer i.e., PW.31 Shankar M. Ragi,
indicates that allotment was made to the aforesaid
accused persons though they had not obtained requisite
points towards the same. In order to better understand
the same, the process which adopted by the Committee
is required to be considered. In the first instance the
DHUDA Authorities had directed their staff to scrutinize
the applications and to ascertain the number of
applications which were valid. After the first round of
scrutiny, the applications were placed before the
Committee, wherein it was resolved to appoint a Sub
Committee to verify the documents and to make
recommendations for allotment of sites. Initially it was
suggested that the allotment should be made by picking-
up a lottery which was opposed by the then District In-
Charge Minister S.A.Ravindranath stating that the same
may prejudice the case on other eligible candidates since
picking up lottery was totally based on luck. The
aforesaid suggestion was accepted and Sub-Committee
had formulated certain rules by themselves for
68 Spl.CC No.489/2019
considering the applications and for instance one point
was awarded to the applicants who were having
dependents and another point to be awarded if they were
married and likewise several aspects were discussed.
Interestingly, the chart which they had formulated for
awarding the points was not placed either before the
DHUDA Authorities or before the Main Committee before
implementing the allotment of sites. Be that as it may,
the evidence of PW.31 Shankar M Ragi would indicate
that the marks awarded to several accused persons were
even though less than the other candidates, they were
given preference over the others. For the sake of
convenience, the following chart is prepared in order to
depict correct picture with respect to allotment of sites.
(A) General Category sites are allotted in 9 x 12
meters -dimension, total site available 57
67 applications received, 1 to 36 given 2 points – 37
to 59 given 1 point – 60 to 67 given 0 points
Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site
No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment
No.
1 H.R.Rajeshwari 24 2 13 19
69 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(B) General Category sites are allotted in 9 x 15
meters dimension, total site available 137
244 applications received, 1 to 151 given 2 points –
152 to 203 given 1 point – 204 to 244 given 0 points
Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site
No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment
No.
1 H.Muktamba 22 2 58 67
2 A.S.Monica 16 0 235 136
(C) Government Servant Sites are allotted in 9 X
15 meters dimension, total site available 24
104 applications received, 1 to 71 given 2 points –
72 to 97 given 1 point – 98 to 104 given 0 points
Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site
No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment
No.
1 Manjula 25 2 58 20
2 Dharma 5 1 93 22
Nayak.R
3 Sunita.G 6 1 95 23
(D) General Category sites are allotted in 12 x 18
meters dimension, total site available 51
141 applications received, 1 to 83 given 2 points –
84 to 119 given 1 point – 120 to 141 given 0 points
Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site
No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment
No.
1 Chethana 1 1 107 30
2 Shwetha 2 1 115 43
3 Prasanna 7 2 35 22
Kumar
70 Spl.CC No.489/2019
4 M.N.Deepak 12 1 137 52
5 Dr.B.Gowtham 18 0 134 2
6 Sunil Byadgi 19 1 86 33
7 Nethravathi 21 2 14 10
8 Aradhyamath 23 1 92 6
(E) General Category sites are allotted in 15 x 24
meters dimension, total site available 9
21 applications received, 1 to 16 given 2 points – 17
to 18 given 1 point – 19 to 21 given 0 points
Sl. Name of the Accused Points Seniority Site
No. Accused No. Scored No. allotment
No.
1 Sudharani 10 2 16 9
2 Praveen Kumar 11 2 14 7
3 G.S.Hanumantha 13 1 19 5
51. When the aforesaid chart is appreciated,
particularly in general category with respect to allotment
of sites 9 X 12 meters dimension, accused No.24
H.R.Rajeshwari had secured 2 points and her seniority
number was 13, wherein totally 57 sites were available.
Further, when the chart is further probed in general
category site allotment of 12 X 18 meters dimension,
accused No.1 Chethana had secured 1 point and her
seniority in the total list is 107, wherein only 51 sites
71 Spl.CC No.489/2019
were available. When the aforesaid chart is carefully
appreciated, it definitely raises a question that on what
basis allotment of sites were made and whether grading
of points was in accordance with law.
52. The learned Counsel for accused No.2
Sri.R.Nagendra Naik has vehemently argued that no
procedure has been mentioned in the Act or in the
allotment Rules and as such it was the absolute
discussion given to the Committee to decide. I have
carefully appreciated the submissions made by both the
parties. On bare perusal of the chart, it indicates that
definitely some irregularities had taken place towards
allotment of sites. However, at the same time if the
procedures and Rules are carefully appreciated, it does
not indicate a proper procedure which is required to be
followed by the Authorities in the allotment of sites.
Unless Rules are framed with respect to allotment of
sites, the question of considering the awarding of points
as an irregular one or otherwise could not be proper. It
72 Spl.CC No.489/2019
is a situation wherein the allotment of sites is questioned
by pointing out that the procedures that are adopted was
not in accordance with law. Unfortunately, there is no
proper procedure prescribed and even the investigation
of the case lacks merit for the reason that the
Investigating Officer has not bothered to examine the
Chairman of DHUDA, who was present during the entire
deliberations that had taken place by the Committee
towards allotment of sites. That apart, the Investigating
Officer should have explained in detail by examining the
other persons who were not allotted with the sites also.
In other words, no attempt has been made by the
Investigating Agency to ascertain whether there is any
grievance by the applicants who had successfully filed
the application. The Investigating Agency had totally
concentrated on the allegations made in the complaint
and on the basis of the same, the Investigating Officer
had proceeded to record the statement and also had
taken note of the documents which were available and
has placed the charge-sheet. In the instant case, when a
73 Spl.CC No.489/2019
question of awarding of point arises, the Investigating
Officer should be in a proper position to point out that in
what manner otherwise the eligible applicants were left
out by ignoring their credentials. Just because the points
which were awarded indicates of certain seniority in the
list, the same will not take the place of conclusive proof
to arrive at a conclusion that illegality was committed.
Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that a very thin line separates illegality and
irregularity. Irregularity is an act which can be modified
or which is not tainted with any malafide intention.
However, when an allegation of irregularity is made, the
evidence which is required to be placed is of a higher
pedestal. The main difference between the same has
been succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Apex court in
the judgment rendered in (2024)9 SCC 94 (M/s Al-CAN
Export Private Ltd.,V Prestige H M Polycontainers
Limited and others) wherein it is held as:
88. The aforesaid lapses, in our
opinion, cannot be termed as
irregularity. Once it is evident that
74 Spl.CC No.489/2019the mandatory provisions as
stipulated under the rules and
regulations are not followed or
abridged, any action pursuant to the
same could be termed as gross
illegality. There is a fine distinction
between illegality and irregularity.
Whereas the former goes to the root
of the matter and renders the action
null and void, of no effect
whatsoever, the latter does not ipso
facto invalidate the action, unless
prejudice is caused to the person
making a complaint, even if, for the
purposes of Order 21 Rule 90CPC the
lapses we have taken note of could be
termed as material irregularities
going to the root of the matter.
89. Almost a century back,
in Ashutosh Sikdar v. Behari Lal
Kirtunia [Ashutosh Sikdar v. Behari
Lal Kirtunia, 1907 SCC OnLine Cal
128 : ILR (1908) 35 Cal 61] , drawing
the distinction between “nullity” and
“irregularity”, Mookerjee, J. stated :
(SCC OnLine Cal)
“… no hard and fast line can be
drawn between a nullity and an
irregularity; but this much is clear,
that an irregularity is a deviation
from a rule of law which does not
take away the foundation of
authority for the proceeding, or
apply to its whole operation, whereas
a nullity is a proceeding that is
taken without any foundation for it,
or is so essentially defective as to be
of no avail or effect whatever, or is
void and incapable of being
validated.”
90. Whether a provision falls under
one category or other is not of easy
75 Spl.CC No.489/2019discernment, and in the ultimate
analysis it depends upon the nature,
scope and object of a particular
provision. A workable test, however,
has been laid down
in Holmes v. Russel [Holmes v. Russel,
(1841) 9 Dowl 487] , wherein it was
held thus:
“7. … ‘It is difficult sometimes to
distinguish between an irregularity
and a nullity; but the safest rule to
determine what is an irregularity
and what is a nullity is to see
whether the party can waive the
objection; if he can waive it, it
amounts to an irregularity; if he
cannot, it is a nullity.’ ”
[see Dhirendra Nath Goari v. Sudhir
Chandra Ghosh [Dhirendra Nath
Goari v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh,
1964 SCC OnLine SC 259 : (1964) 6
SCR 1001 : AIR 1964 SC 1300] , SCC
OnLine SC para 7]
(emphasis supplied)
53. Unfortunately, in the above case, no such
documents are placed by the prosecution to indicate that
the allotment itself was illegal or the same would go to
the roots of the case.
54. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to
the Resolution which was passed by the DHUDA
Authorities and marked as Ex.P205. The Resolution
76 Spl.CC No.489/2019
indicates of the entire proceedings that had taken place
and finally the same indicates of successful allotees. On
19.05.2010, the Sub-Committee formed for allotment of
sites had formulated a procedure by stating that if the
applicant was married 1 point was required to be allotted
and in case of dependents less than two 1 point is to be
accorded. Further, 1 point was required to be accorded
if the applicant had made attempt for allotment on
previous occasions and if the applicant was unsuccessful
previously for any other reasons, the aforesaid point was
required to be awarded. The awarding of point itself is to
be found fault for the reasons that the applicants who
are having less than 2 dependents are awarded with one
point and whereas if the applicant is having more than 2
dependents, no points are to be accorded. It is a common
sense that when the dependents are more, the
responsibilities of a person will be more and also his
capacity to purchase site in the open market will be
much less than the person who is having less
dependents. That apart, in the application, though it is
77 Spl.CC No.489/2019
questioned that whether he has applied for allotment on
previous occasions there no materials to indicate that
whether the applicant was otherwise eligible had not
considered in any other earlier allotment processes.
However nothing is clarified with respect to preferences
given to the applicants who were unsuccessful in
previous allotment process. Under these circumstances,
the Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee itself was
not proper. Even then, the Sub-Committee which had
passed the Resolution indicates that it was headed by
accused No.30 Yashawanth Rao Jadhav and other
members of the Sub-Committee and the other members
of the Sub-Committee Accused No.32 Smt.Shashikala
Eshwarappa, Commissioner of DHUDA, Executive
Engineer KUWS and DB, District Health and Family
Welfare Officer, Davanagere. If for a moment the
aforesaid particulars are carefully looked into, admittedly
the Commissioner of DHUDA and the Executive Engineer
have not been arraigned as accused persons. It is also
relevant to note that Dr.Sumithra Devi, the DHO, had
78 Spl.CC No.489/2019
not attended all the meetings. Even otherwise, the
Investigating Officer is unable to answer the aforesaid
question during the course of cross-examination that
why a pick and choose method has been made by the
Investigating Agencies. In short, in order to bring home
the guilt of the accused persons, the Investigating
Agencies are required to point out the overt-act alleged
against each of the accused persons. Further, the
Investigating Officer should have pointed out the positive
role being played by the Commissioner of DHUDA as well
as the Executive Engineer and DHO with respect to
allotment of points. If awarding of points itself was
illegal, then the Investigating Agency cannot blow hot
and cold in one breath exonerating the Commissioner of
DHUDA as well as the Executive Engineer and putting all
the blame on the other members of the Sub-Committee.
Even otherwise, the recommendations of the Sub-
Committee were only in the manner of recommendations
which was placed before the Committee formed by
DHUDA for allotment of sites. If the fault is committed by
79 Spl.CC No.489/2019
the members of the Sub-Committee and if it is endorsed
or seconded by the Main Committee, then the allegations
of committing illegality have to be shared by the
members of the Main Committee. It is repeatedly pointed
out the court is not holding that the act of the members
of the Sub Committee is perse illegal, but is only
analyzing to ascertain whether the same is illegal or
irregular. No where in the entire investigation process,
the members of the Main Committee were examined, nor
an attempt has been made to arraign the members of the
Main Committee as accused persons. The aforesaid act
itself would indicate that without any justification, some
members have been roped in as accused persons and
some members have been left out for no valid reasons.
55. The sole question which is required to be
considered is whether the stamp of authority can be
placed over the allotment of sites though it is to be found
arbitrary. At the outset, the allotment seems to be an
irregular one. However, as already pointed out above,
each and every irregularity cannot be termed as the
80 Spl.CC No.489/2019
illegal act. The admitted position is that there were no
proper rules for allotment of sites nor the Act or the Rule
do not specify the manner in which the allotment was to
be made when two applicants secured equal points. First
of all, there is no justification with respect to awarding of
points itself and unless the same is justified, the
question of looking into the other aspect cannot be
adjudicated.
56. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to
the allegations leveled against the accused persons. In
the instant case, it is charged against the accused
persons that at the time of submitting the applications
itself they had intentionally had sworn to a false affidavit
by stating that they were not owning any sites or houses
in the State of Karnataka. As already discussed above
and also by looking into the affidavit sworn by the
applicants, it indicates that they have clearly narrated
that they were not allotted with any sites or house
properties by any Urban Development Authority or the
Government Agencies. Under these circumstances, the
81 Spl.CC No.489/2019
question of entertaining a dishonest intention right from
the inception is not established by the prosecution. In
order to better understand the aforesaid aspects, it
would be appropriate to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 (Vijay
Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal), wherein it has
been held as follows;
32. As observed and held by this Court
in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy
& Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr.,
the ingredients to constitute an offence
under Section 420 are as follows:-
i) a person must commit the offence of
cheating under Section 415;
and
ii) the person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to;
a) deliver property to any person; or
b) make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed
and capable of being converted into
valuable security. Thus, cheating is an
essential ingredient for an act to
constitute an offence under Section 420
IPC.
33. The following observation made by
this Court in the case of Uma Shankar
Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. with
almost similar facts and circumstances
may be relevant to note at this stage:-
82 Spl.CC No.489/2019
“6. Now the question to be examined by
us is as to whether on the facts
disclosed in the petition of the
complaint any criminal offence
whatsoever is made out much less
offences under Section 420/120-B IPC. The
only allegation in the complaint
petitioner against the accused person
is that they assured the complainant
that when they receive the insurance
claim amounting to Rs. 4,20,000, they
would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 to the
complainant out of that but the same
has never been paid. It was pointed out
that on behalf of the complainant that
the accused fraudulently persuaded the
complainant to agree so that the
accused persons may take steps for
moving the consumer forum in relation
to the claim of Rs. 4,20,0000. It is well
settled that every breach of contract
would not give rise to an offence of
cheating and only in those cases of
breach of contract would amount to
cheating where there was any
deception played at the very inception.
If the intention to cheat has developed
later on, the same cannot amount to
cheating. In the present case, it has
nowhere been stated that at the very
inception that there was intention on
behalf of the accused person to cheat
which is a condition precedent for an
offence under 420 IPC.
“7. In our view petition of complaint
does not disclose any criminal offence
at all much less any offence either
under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC
and the present case is a case of purely
civil dispute between the parties for
which remedy lies before a civil court
by filing a properly constituted suit. In
our opinion, in view of these facts
(2005) 10 SCC 336 allowing the police
83 Spl.CC No.489/2019investigation to continue would amount
to an abuse of the process of court and
to prevent the same it was just and
expedient for the High Court to quash
the same by exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C which it has
erroneously refused.”
34. There can be no doubt that a mere
breach of contract is not in itself a
criminal offence and gives rise to the
civil liability of damages. However, as
held by this court in Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
& Anr., the distinction between mere
breach of contract and cheating, which
is criminal offence, is a fine one. While
breach of contract cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating,
fraudulent or dishonest intention is the
basis of the offence of cheating. In the
case at hand, complaint filed by the
Respondent No. 2 does not disclose
dishonest or fraudulent intention of
the appellants.
35. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., this Court
made the following observation:-
“13. It is true that a given set of
facts may make out a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence and only
because a civil remedy may be
available to the complainant that
itself cannot be ground to quash a
criminal proceeding. The real test is
whether the allegations in the
complaint disclose the criminal
offence of cheating or not. In the
present case, there is nothing to
84 Spl.CC No.489/2019show that at the very inception there
was any inception on behalf of an
accused person to cheat which is a
condition precedent for an offence
u/s 420 IPC. In our view, the
complaint does not disclose any
criminal offence at all. Criminal
proceedings should not be (2000) 4
SCC 168, (2015) 8 SCC 293
encouraged when it is found to be
mala fide or otherwise an abuse of
the process of the courts. Superior
courts while exercising this power
should also strive to serve the ends of
justice. In our opinion, in view of
these facts allowing the police
investigation to continue would
amount to an abuse of the process of
the court and the High Court
committed an error in refusing to
exercise the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.”
57. When the aforesaid Authorities are
appreciated, the legal position which can be
juxtaposed in short as follows;
a. Deception of any person
b. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing
any person to deliver any property
c. To consent that any person shall
retain any property and finally
intentionally inducing that person to
do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit.
85 Spl.CC No.489/2019
58. If the aforesaid ingredients are applied to the
case on hand, firstly the prosecution is required to
prove that there was an fraudulent intention at the
inception of the case. Time and again it has been held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, an intention to cheat
and defraud should be in existence right from the
beginning. In order to better appreciate the same, once
again, at the cost of repetition, the evidence requires to
be revisited. The provision of Sec.420 would clearly
stipulate that mere misrepresentation of the fact would
not be sufficient and it is a sine-qua-non that accused
who entertained the mala-fide intention from the
beginning itself. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
another occasion has held that, in order to prove the
dishonest intention, it would be possible always to
insist upon direct evidence. However, reasonable
inferences can be drawn from the circumstances which
are prevailing. In this regard, the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15
86 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla)
wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Apex court as follows:
8. As was observed by this Court
in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of
Madras [AIR 1967 SC 986 : 1967 Cri LJ
946] it is not necessary that a false
pretence should be made in express
words by the accused. It may be inferred
from all the circumstances including the
conduct of the accused in obtaining the
property. In the true nature of things, it
is not always possible to prove dishonest
intention by any direct evidence. It can
be proved by a number of circumstances
from which a reasonable inference can
be drawn.
9. On the proved facts it is seen that a
cheque was handed over to the
complainant and in the receipt it was
stated that the shares have been
received. The High Court has referred to
this factual position and drawn a
conclusion that the receipt (Ext. PW 3/B)
which was admittedly executed by
accused Devender clearly states that the
shares had been transferred. The mere
fact that the cheque was filled in by the
complainant is not sufficient to take
away the effect of the statement in the
receipt. The plea that it was an advance
receipt does not appear to have been
even agitated before the courts below.
10. Significantly, there was no
suggestion to the complainant (PW 3)
that the shares had not been delivered.
87 Spl.CC No.489/2019
59. The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down
the criteria that in order to attract the rigors of Section
420 IPC, there must be an element of cheating and
defrauding which had commenced right from the
inception. Once again when the materials are re-
visited, it would clearly indicate that the accused
persons who were the allotees had applied for
allotment of site from DHUDA in pursuance with the
notifications issued and thereafter the authorities had
formed Sub Committee to scrutinize and recommend
the name of the allotees. It is not the case of
prosecution that some of the allotees/ accused persons
had met the members of the Main committee or the
Sub Committee and had obtained the allotment. There
are no materials to indicate that they had exerted
pressure on the members of the Sub Committee to
allot them with particular points. Though it certainly
raises the eye brows that why some of the accused
88 Spl.CC No.489/2019
persons were given preferential treatment, nothing has
been pointed out by the investigating authorities to
indicate that such preferential treatment or partisan
treatment was in furtherance of previous meeting of
mind between the members and District In charge
Minister and the allotees. Unless the prosecution
points out the same even in a circumstantial manner,
the suspicion cannot be replaced with proof.
60. In order to consider the legal position, once
again the points awarded by the Sub-Committee is
carefully appreciated to ascertain whether the same
attracts Sec.420 of IPC. As already discussed above, the
prosecution is at loss to explain why the Chairman and
some of the Members of the Sub-Committee were left out
who were instrumental in awarding points to the
successful applicants. That apart, the provision of
Sec.120B of IPC is nowhere pressed into service by the
prosecution in order to contend that there was meeting
of minds between the accused persons and that of the
89 Spl.CC No.489/2019
members of the Sub-Committee. If only the prosecution
alleges that accused had individually approached the
members of the Sub-Committee or the then District In-
charge Minister, then necessary materials are required to
be produced by them, but unless the prosecution
clarifies their case that whether all the accused persons
who were allotees had met the members of the
Committee or Sub-Committee, the question of
entertaining a malafide intention right from the inception
cannot be proved. That apart, the procedure which is
adopted by the Sub-Committee though amounts to an
irregular, cannot be considered as an illegal act. By
looking into the aforesaid aspect, it is crystal clear that
the prosecution has rightly failed to prove the allegations
made under Sec.198 and 420 of IPC.
61. Now, the other aspect which is required to be
considered is whether the act of accused No.30
S.A.Ravindranath, accused No.31 Yashawanth Rao
Jadhavan, accused No.32 Shashikala Eshwarappa and
accused No.35 Sumithra Devi, who were the public
90 Spl.CC No.489/2019
servants can be charged for the offences punishable
under Sec.8 and Sec.13(1)(c) r/w Sec.13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the
prosecution that the aforesaid public servants who were
the members of the Sub-Committee had given undue
advantage by improperly performing the public duty and
hence they had committed an offence punishable under
Sec.8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, it is
also contended that they had acted dishonestly and the
same amounts to mis-conduct as contemplated under
Sec.13(1)(c) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. For the sake of brevity, the provision of Sec.8 is
extracted which reads as follows;
8. Offence relating to bribing of a public
servant.
Any person who gives or promises to give
an undue advantage to another person
or persons, with intention-
(i) to induce a public servant to perform
improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the
improper performance of public
duty;shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years or with fine or
with both:
91 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Provided that the provisions of this
section shall not apply where a person
is compelled to give such undue
advantage:
Provided further that the person so
compelled shall report the matter to the
law enforcement authority or
investigating agency within a period of
seven days from the date of giving such
undue advantage:
Provided also that when the offence
under this section has been committed
by commercial organisation, such
commercial organisation shall be
punishable with fine.
Illustration. – A person, ‘P’ gives a public
servant, ‘S’ an amount of ten thousand
rupees to ensure that he is granted a
license, over all the other bidders. ‘P’ is
guilty of an offence under this sub-
section.
Explanation. – It shall be immaterial
whether the person to whom an undue
advantage is given or promised to be
given is the same person as the person
who is to perform, or has performed, the
public duty concerned, and, it shall also
be immaterial whether such undue
advantage is given or promised to be
given by the person directly or through a
third party.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply
to a person, if that person, after
informing a law enforcement authority
or investigating agency, gives or
promises to give any undue advantage to
another person in order to assist such
law enforcement authority or
92 Spl.CC No.489/2019investigating agency in its investigation
of the offence alleged against the later.
62. The opening words of the Provision itself
would clarify that any person, when he gives or promises
an undue advantage with an intention to induce a public
servant to perform improperly a public duty or to reward
such public servant for improper performance of public
duty. In order to prove the aforesaid aspect, the
prosecution is required to establish that the accused
persons had induced the aforesaid public servants to
perform their public duty improperly and in furtherance
of the same a reward was given or assured by them.
Unless the same is established, the prosecution cannot
contend that the allegation under Sec.8 is established. In
the instant case, nowhere it is mentioned that whether
the accused persons had met the members of the Sub-
Committee or in any other manner had approached them
to obtain an order which was otherwise illegal. That
apart, the other limb of the submission by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor with respect to attracting the
93 Spl.CC No.489/2019
rigor of Sec.13(1)(c) is also to be considered. The
provision of Sec.13(1)(c) would clearly indicate that a
public servant has dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriated or otherwise converts for his own use
any property entrusted by him, then the provision of
Sec.13(2) can be attracted. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is a punishment clause which specifies
that a public servant in the event of proving the criminal
misconduct would be punished for not less than 4 years,
but which may extend to 10 years. Even otherwise, at
the time of committing the alleged offence, the law as it
stood on that day would be imprisonment for 1 years
which may extend to 7 years. When the entire allegations
leveled by the prosecution is once again considered by
the Court, firstly the prosecution is required to establish
what amounts to a criminal misconduct. The question of
criminal mis-conduct is not res-integra and it has been
laid down and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various judgments. First instance, the Court has relied
upon the Authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
94 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(2007)4 SCC 566 (Inspector Prem Chand V Govt of NCT of
Delhi) wherein it is held as:
Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54 : 1992 SCC
(L&S) 793 : (1992) 21 ATC 435] it was
stated: (SCC pp. 57-58, para 5)
“5. Misconduct has been defined
in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. at p.
999, thus:
‘A transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction from duty, unlawful
behavior, willful in character, improper
or wrong behavior; its synonyms are
misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior,
delinquency, impropriety, mis-
management, offense, but not negligence
or carelessness.’
Misconduct in office has been defined
as:
‘Any unlawful behavior by a public
officer in relation to the duties of his
office, willful in character. Term
embraces acts which the office-holder
had no right to perform, acts performed
improperly, and failure to act in the
face of an affirmative duty to act.’ ”
11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law
Lexicon, 3rd Edn., at p. 3027, the term
“misconduct” has been defined as under:
“The term ‘misconduct’ implies a
wrongful intention, and not a mere error
of judgment.
***
95 Spl.CC No.489/2019Misconduct is not necessarily the same
thing as conduct involving moral
turpitude.
The word ‘misconduct’ is a relative
term, and has to be construed with
reference to the subject-matter and the
context wherein the term occurs, having
regard to the scope of the Act or statute
which is being construed. ‘Misconduct’
literally means wrong conduct or
improper conduct.”
(See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. T.K. Raju [(2006) 3 SCC 143 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 480] .)
63. When the aforesaid dictum is applied to the
case on hand, it clearly indicates that the prosecution
has utterly failed to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt. Even otherwise, the Authority which is relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the accused reported in
(2015) 11 SCC 669 (National Institute of Technology and
another Vs. Pannalal Choudhury and another), wherein
it has been held that;
“Doctrines and Maximx – “Ratihabitio
mandato aequiparatur” – Meaning –
Held, means “a subsequent ratification
of an act is equivalent to a prior
authority to perform such act” – Further
held, ratification assumes an invalid act
which is retrospectively validated.”
96 Spl.CC No.489/2019
64. In the aforesaid Authority, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has succinctly explained that when the higher
Authorities ratifies the act performed by the concerned,
the ratification assumes an invalid act to be
retrospectively validated. Here in the case on hand, if for
the sake of arguments, it is to be accepted that the
recommendations made by the Sub-Committee were not
in accordance with law, then nothing prevented
Chairman of DHUDA or the members of the Main
Committee to modify the same. Interestingly, the
allotment was made by the DHUDA Authorities by
passing a Resolution to accept the recommendations
being made by the Sub-Committee. In other words, the
recommendations were ratified by the Committee which
consisted of the Chairman, Secretary of DHUDA who
have not been arraigned as accused persons in the
instant case. Though the act of the accused persons
including the public servants may amounts to a mis-
conduct, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
same amounts to a criminal mis-conduct. Under these
97 Spl.CC No.489/2019
circumstances, there is no other alternative for the Court
than to acquit the accused persons for the reason of
lackadaisical manner of investigation being conducted by
the Investigating Agency. It is also appropriate to
mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again
held that however grave may be the suspicion, the same
will not displace its proof. As such, the materials though
indicates of certain irregularities being committed, the
same will not attract the rigors of Sec.13(1) (c) and
Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Now lastly
dealing with the provisions of section 8 of the Prevention
of Corruption act, the judgment which is relied upon by
the learned counsel for Accused reported in (2018)17
SCC 732 (Babji Vs. State of Andra Pradesh) , wherein it has
been held as follows;
5. In order to establish the offence
under Section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act it must be proved:
(i) That the accused accepted or
obtained, or agreed to accept, or
attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other
person;
98 Spl.CC No.489/2019
(ii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for
inducing by corrupt or illegal means
any ‘public servant’ to do or forbear
to do any official act or to show
favour or render any service to any of
the persons specified in the section.
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to
indicate that the Members of the main committee or the
Sub Committee had obtained or agreed to accept for
himself or for some other persons any gratification or as
a motive or reward for inducing to do or to forbear any
official act. In short the prosecution has failed to prove
that the accused persons including the District In-charge
Minister and other members of the committee had
obtained any gratification towards allotment of sites.
Looked from any angle independently the prosecution
has utterly failed to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt. It seems that the investigating agency seems to
have tried to wash off their hands merely by collecting
the application forms which were filed by the accused
persons and had only tried to investigate with respect to
the offences which were alleged in the private complaint.
99 Spl.CC No.489/2019
It would be appropriate to remind the investigating
agency that the complaint is filed only to set the criminal
law into motion and once that law has taken its course
and once the investigating agency commences the
investigation the same is required to be considered from
wider angle. Further, I have also relied upon the treatise
on Criminal Investigation — Basic Perspectives by Paul
B. Weston and Renneth M. Wells which reads as :
“Criminal investigation is a lawful
search for people and things useful
in reconstructing the circumstances
of an illegal act or omission and the
mental state accompanying it. It is
probing from the known to the
unknown, backward in time, and its
goal is to determine truth as far as it
can be discovered in any post-factum
inquiry. Successful investigations are
based on fidelity, accuracy and
sincerity in lawfully searching for
the true facts of an event under
investigation and on an equal
faithfulness, exactness, and probity
in reporting the results of an
investigation. Modern investigators
are persons who stick to the truth
and are absolutely clear about the
time and place of an event and the
measurable aspects of evidence. They
work throughout their investigation
fully recognizing that even a minor
contradiction or error may destroy
confidence in their investigation. The
100 Spl.CC No.489/2019joining of science with traditional
criminal investigation techniques
offers new horizons of efficiency in
criminal investigation. New
perspectives in investigation bypass
reliance upon informers and
custodial interrogation and
concentrate upon a skilled scanning
of the crime scene for physical
evidence and a search for as many
witnesses as possible. Mute evidence
tells its own story in court, either by
its own demonstrativeness or
through the testimony of an expert
witness involved in its scientific
testing. Such evidence may serve in
lieu of, or as corroboration of,
testimonial evidence of witnesses
found and interviewed by police in an
extension of their responsibility to
seek out the truth of all the
circumstances of crime happening.
An increasing certainty in solving
crimes is possible and will contribute
to the major deterrent of crime–the
certainty that a criminal will be
discovered, arrested and convicted.
The same applies to the case on hand. In the
instant case, though the investigating officer had
collected several documents unfortunately the
investigation was misdirected and there are no materials
to indicate that the accused had committed the aforesaid
offences. Ergo, I answer points for consideration in the
Negative.
101 Spl.CC No.489/2019
65. Point No.5: In view of my findings on point
No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No’s.1 to 6, 8 to 32 and 35 are
hereby acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sec.198, 420 of Indian Penal Code and
Sec.8, 13(1) (c) r/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the
accused persons stand extended till the
completion of the period of appeal.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by
her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in
the Open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2025)(Santhosh Gajanan Bhat)
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected former
and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
102 Spl.CC No.489/2019ANNEXURES
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution:-
PW1 CW3 Vasudeva.C.S.
PW2 CW1 Manikanta Sarkar
PW3 CW7 Sunil Kumar.J
PW4 CW9 Veeranjaneya.H.T.
PW5 CW11 P.S.Savitha
PW6 CW13 Somashekar.N
PW7 CW14 N.Thippeswamy
PW8 CW16 Sathish D.P.
PW9 CW17 Abhijith V.C.
PW10 CW33 Achutha Murthy K.A.
PW11 CW18 Dr.Mahantesh.N
PW12 CW19 Gandhi.H.S.
PW13 CW20 Ravindra Gowda
PW14 CW24 K.Nagaraja
PW15 CW26 Ningappa.H.Kummannanavar
PW16 CW23 Rukmini.V
PW17 CW27 Lakshmana Kumar
PW18 CW30 C.K.Basavarajappa
PW19 CW37 V.Anbu Kumar
PW20 CW36 H.M.Prema
PW21 CW4 A. Alla Bakshi
PW22 CW34 Venkateshwarappa Gaddad
PW23 CW38 Eranna
PW24 CW39 Manjegowda
PW25 CW22 Shwetha
PW26 CW40 K.C.Purushotham
103 Spl.CC No.489/2019
PW27 Addl. M.P.Ramesh
Witness
PW28 CW42 C.B.Patil
PW29 CW41 S.T.Wodeyar
PW30 CW43 S.C.Manjappa
PW31 CW44 Shankar M.Ragi
2. Witnesses examined by the defence/accused.- Nil
3. Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.1(a) to Signature of PW1 (c) Ex.P.1(d) Signature of PW29 Ex.P.2 File of accused No.1 Ex.P.3 File of accused No.2-Shwetha Ex.P.3(a) Letter dt.11.12.2014 of Dy.S.P.Lokayukta Ex.P.3(b) Letter dt.27.12.2014 Ex.P.3(c) to Four katha Extracts furnished along with (f) letter Ex.P.3(b) Ex.P.4 File of accused No.3 Ex.P.4(a) Letter dt.4.2.2014 of Davanagere
Lokayukta Superintendent of Police
Ex.P.4(b) Letter dt.5.3.2014 to Lokayukta Dy.S.P.
furnishing information
Ex.P.4(c) Encumbrance Certificate furnished along
with Ex.P.4(b)
Ex.P.5 Mahazar of seizure of file of A2 S.Shwetha
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW29
104 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.6 Mahazar of seizure of file of A3 Sonibai
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.7 Complaint filed before Davanagere
Lokayukta Court
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.8 Affidavit
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.9 Complaint in PCR 9/13
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.10 Verification Affidavit
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.11 Complaint in PCR 10/13
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.12 Verification Affidavit
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.13 Complaint in PCR 11/13
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.14 Verification Affidavit
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.15 Complaint in PCR 13/13
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.16 Affidavit
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.17 Complaint in PCR 15/13
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.18 Affidavit
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.19 Complaint in PCR 19/13
105 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.20 Affidavit
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.21 Complaint in PCR 21/13
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.22 Affidavit
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.23 Complaint in PCR 23/13
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.24 Affidavit
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.25 Complaint in PCR 25/13
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.26 Affidavit
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.27 Complaint in PCR 27/13
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.28 Affidavit
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.29 Complaint in PCR 29/13
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.30 Affidavit
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.31 Complaint in PCR 31/13
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.32 Affidavit
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW2
106 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.33 Complaint in PCR 33/13
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.34 Affidavit
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.35 Complaint in PCR 35/13
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.36 Affidavit
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.37 Complaint in PCR 37/13
Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.38 Affidavit
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.39 Complaint in PCR 46/13
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.40 Affidavit
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.41 Complaint in PCR 47/13
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.42 Affidavit
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.43 Complaint in PCR 48/13
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.44 Affidavit
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.45 Complaint in PCR 49/13
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.46 Affidavit
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW2
107 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.47 Complaint in PCR 51/13
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.48 Affidavit
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.49 Complaint in PCR 52/13
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.50 Affidavit
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.51 Complaint in PCR 53/13
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.52 Affidavit
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.53 Mahazar in Crime 28/2013
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.53(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.54 Mahazar in Crime 30/2013
Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.54(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.55 Mahazar in Crime 32/2013
Ex.P.55(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.55(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.56 Mahazar in Crime 36/2013
Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.56(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.57 Mahazar in Crime 38/2013
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.57(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.58 Mahazar in Crime 34/2013
108 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.59 Mahazar of seizure of file of A18
Dr.G.B.Goutham in Crime 40/2013
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.59(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.60 Mahazar – seizure of file of A19 Sunil
S.Byadagi Crime 42/2013
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.60(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.61 Mahazar -seizure of file of A20-Smt.Latha
in Crime 44/2013
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.61(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.62 Mahazar – seizure of file of A21
Nethravathi.N.K. in Crime 46/2013
Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.62(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.63 Mahazar – seizure of file of A22
H.M.Mukthamba in Crime 60/2013
Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.63(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.64 Mahazar – of seizure of file of A23
P.P.Aradhya Math in Crime 61/2013
Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.64(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.65 Mahazar -seizure of file of A24 Rajeshwari
H.R. in Crime 62/2013
Ex.P.65(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.65(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.66 Mahazar – seizure of A25 Manjula in
Crime 63/2013
109 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.66(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.67 Mahazar – seizure of file of A26 Nagaraj.T.
in Crime 65/2013
Ex.P.67(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.67(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.68 Mahazar – seizure of file of A27 Suresh B.
in Crime 66/2013
Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.68(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.69 Seizure Mahazar 20.02.2013 – seizure of
file of A29 Nijaguna Shivacharya
Ex.P.69(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.69(b) Signature of PW30
Ex.P.70 Letter Police Superintendent
dt.14.01.2015
Ex.P.71 Letter written by PW8/CW16 to
Lokayukta Police Superintendent
Ex.P.72 to 78 Copies of 5 Sale Deeds and 2 Gift Deeds
enclosed along with letter Ex.P.71
Ex.P.79 Letter of Deputy Superintendent of Police
dt.25.07.2015
Ex.P.80 Letter dt. 30.07.2015 written by PW9
Ex.P.81 Letter dt. 07.11.2015 written by PW9
Ex.P.82 Certificate issued by PDO Grama
Panchayathi, Sriramnagar
Ex.P.83 True copy of Demand Register extract
Ex.P.84 True copy of Demand Register extract
Ex.P.85 Letter dt.21.02.2014 of Dy.SP Lokayukta
Ex.P.86 Letter dt.28.02.2014 of PW11
Ex.P.87 to Four katha extracts furnished along with
110 Spl.CC No.489/2019P.90 letter Ex.P86
Ex.P.91 Letter dt. 28.07.2015
Ex.P.92 Letter dt. 07.08.2015 of PW11
Ex.P.93 Katha extract of house of
G.S.Hanumamthappa-A13
Ex.P.94 Letter dt.14.01.2015 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.95 Letter dt. 07.02.2015 of PW11
Ex.P.96 Katha Extract
Ex.P.97 Katha Extract
Ex.P.98 Letter dt. 19.04.2014 of Dy.SP
Ex.P.99 Letter dt. 05.05.2014 of PW11
Ex.P.100 Katha Extract
Ex.P.101 Letter dt. 24.06.2014 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.102 Letter dt. 02.07.2014 of PW11
Ex.P.103 Katha extract
Ex.P.104 Letter dt. 29.04.2016 of Dy.S.P
Ex.P.105 Letter dt. 25.05.2016 of PW11
Ex.P.106 Katha extract
Ex.P.107 Letter dt. 15.04.2015 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.108 Letter dt. 20.05.2015 of PW11
Ex.P.109-112 4 katha extracts
Ex.P.113 Letter dt. 30.07.2015 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.114 Katha extract
Ex.P.115 Letter dt. 28.07.2015 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.116 Letter dt. 10.09.2015 of PW12
Ex.P.117 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.05.2011
Ex.P.118 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.05.2011
Ex.P.119 CC of Cancellation Deed dt. 12.07.2011
Ex.P.120 CC of Sale Deed dt. 29.05.2014
111 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.121 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.04.2010
Ex.P.122 CC of Sale Deed dt. 03.10.2013
Ex.P.123 CC of Sale Deed dt. 30.04.2010
Ex.P.124 CC of Sale Deed dt. 17.09.2009
Ex.P.125 Letter of Police Superintendent dt.
28.07.2015
Ex.P.126 Letter of PW13 dt. 10.05.2015
Ex.P.127 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.128 Letter of Lokayukta Police Superintendent
dated 15.04.2015
Ex.P.129 Letter of PW8 dt. 18.04.2015
Ex.P.130 CC of Gift Deed dt. 27.04.2007
Ex.P.131 CC of Sale Deed dt. 27.04.2007
Ex.P.132 Letter of Police Superintendent dt.
25.07.2015
Ex.P.133 Letter written by Prabhuswamy
Ex.P.134 Letter written by Prabhuswamy
Ex.P.135 Katha extract
Ex.P.136 Katha extract
Ex.P.137 Letter from Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta 06.04.2015
Ex.P.138 Letter dt.13.4.2015 written by PW15 to
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta
Ex.P.138(a) Signature of PW15
Ex.P.139 Copy of Assessment Register extract
Ex.P.140 Letter dt. 03.06.2014 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.141 Letter dt. 16.06.2014 of PW16
Ex.P.141(a) Signature of PW16
112 Spl.CC No.489/2019Ex.P.142 Copy of Demand register extract
Ex.P.143 Letter dt. 21.04.2014 of Dy.S.P.
Ex.P.144 to Form No.3 Rule 20 issued by Tumakuru
154 Mahanagara Palike
Ex.P.155 Check list pertaining to Accused Sunitha
Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.156 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Vasantha Kumar
Ex.P.156(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.157 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Goutham
Ex.P.157(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.158 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Nethravathi
Ex.P.158(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.159 Check list pertaining to Accused- P.P.
Aradhya Mutt
Ex.P.159(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.160 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Rajeshwari H.R.
Ex.P.160(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.161 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Nagaraj.T.
Ex.P.161(a) Signature of PW18
Ex.P.162 Sanction to prosecute Accused Dharma
Naik – letter dt. 03.01.2017 issued by
PW19
Ex.P.162(a) Signature of PW19
Ex.P.163 Sanction to prosecute accused Sunitha –
letter dt. 03.11.2016 issued by PW20
Ex.P.163(a) Signature of PW20
113 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Ex.P.164 Mahazar dt. 03.08.2013 with respect to
Cr.No.22/13 and Cr.No.24/2013
Ex.P.164(a) Signature of PW21
Ex.P.164(b) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.165 Mahazar dt. 03.08.2013
Ex.P.165(a) Signature of PW21
Ex.P.166 Sanction to prosecute accused Suresh –
Sanction order dt. 23.01.2017
Ex.P.166(a) Signature of PW23
Ex.P.167 Sanction order to prosecute accused
B. Vasanth Kumar
Ex.P.167(a) Signature of PW24
Ex.P.168 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Smt.H.S. Muktamba
Ex.P.168(a) Signature of PW25
Ex.P.169 Check list pertaining to Accused- Smt.
Gowri Bai
Ex.P.169(a) Signature of PW25
Ex.P.170 Check list pertaining to Accused-
M.N.Deepak
Ex.P.170(a) Signature of PW25
Ex.P.171 Check list pertaining to Accused-
Prasanna Kumar.G.S.
Ex.P.171(a) Signature of PW25
Ex.P.172 FIR in Cr.No.11/2013 (PCR No.5/13)
Ex.P.172(a) Signature of PW26
Ex.P.173 FIR in CR No.15/13 (PCR 9/2013)
Ex.P.173(a) Signature of PW26
Ex.P.174 FIR in CR No.16/13 (PCR No.10/2013)
Ex.P.174(a) Signature of PW26
Ex.P.175 FIR in PCR No.17/13 (PCR No.11/2013)
114 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Ex.P.175(a) Signature of PW26
Ex.P.176 Mahazar dt. 08.07.2013
Ex.P.176(a) Signature of PW27
Ex.P.176(b) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.177 File pertaining to H.Guddappa
Ex.P.178 File pertaining to R.Dharma Naik
Ex.P.179 File pertaining to G.Sunitha
Ex.P.180 FIR in CR.No.60/13
Ex.P.180(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.181 FIR in CR.No.61/13
Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.182 FIR in CR.No.62/13
Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.183 FIR in CR.No.63/13
Ex.P.183(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.184 FIR in CR.No.65/13
Ex.P.184(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.185 FIR in CR.No.66/13
Ex.P.185(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.186 FIR in CR.No.67/13
Ex.P.186(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.187 Mahazar in CR.No.34/13
Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.188 FIR in Cr.No.22/2013
Ex.P.188(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.189 FIR in Cr.No.24/2013
Ex.P.189(a) Signature of PW29
115 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Ex.P.190 FIR in Cr.No.28/2013
Ex.P.190(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.191 FIR in Cr.No.30/2013
Ex.P.191(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.192 FIR in Cr.No.32/13
Ex.P.192(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.193 FIR in Cr.No.34/13
Ex.P.193(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.194 FIR in Cr.No.36/13
Ex.P.194(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.195 FIR in Cr.No.38/13
Ex.P.195(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.196 FIR in Cr.No.40/2013
Ex.P.196(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.197 FIR in Cr.No.42/13
Ex.P.197(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.198 FIR in Cr.No.44/13
Ex.P.198(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.199 FIR in Cr.No.46/13
Ex.P.199(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.200 PF No.13/2013
Ex.P.200(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.201 PF No.18/13
Ex.P.201(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.202 PF No.19/13
Ex.P.202(a) Signature of PW29
Ex.P.203 PF No.3/2014
Ex.P.204 Letter dt. 26.02.2014
116 Spl.CC No.489/2019
Ex.P.205 Certified copy of the resolution book maintained
by the Sub-Committee towards allotment of site
4. Documents exhibited by the Defence/Accused:- Nil
5. List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- Nil
6. List of Court Documents: Nil
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal
cases related to elected former and sitting
MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)
Digitally signed by
SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT
SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT
Date: 2025.06.21 17:49:42
+0530