[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Manjunatha Babu H, Acp vs Narayanaswamy P on 9 July, 2025
1
C.C.No.1719/2020
KABC030066172020
Presented on : 27-01-2020
Registered on : 27-01-2020
Decided on : 09-07-2025
Duration : 5 years, 5 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT.
SRI. SIDDARAMA.S. M.A, LL.M.
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.1719/2020
Complainant State by Vidhana Soudha Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused Persons 1. Sri.P.Narayanaswamy
S/o Puttaswamygowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.10, 2nd Floor,
2nd Block,
Police Residential Quarters,
4th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru.
2
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. Sri.A.V.Manjunatha
S/o Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.56, Basaveshwaranagara,
Arishinakunte,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(Reptd., by Sri.R.K., and Sri.K.B.K.,
Advs)
Name of the Sri.Manjunatha Babu.H
Complainant : Assistant Police Commissioner.
Date of offence 01.01.2019 to 15.03.2019
Date of offence reported 15.03.2019
Date of Commence of 25.07.2023
Evidence
Date of Closure of 21.05.2025
Evidence
Offence Committed Under section 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
Opinion of Judge Found not guilty.
Complainant by Learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
Accused by By Sri.R.K./KBK, Advocate.
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
3
C.C.No.1719/2020
JUDGMENT
The PI of Vidhana Soudha Police Station submitted charge
sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable
under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section
34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and
2 were working in the office of the Police Commissioner as a
computer operator and PVC Department. and in fact they were
joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in the
computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the said
certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant and
took the signature from him by misusing their position and
thereby the accused have committed the above offences. After
completion of the investigation the PI of Vidhana Soudha Police
Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons
for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the
complaint in Vidhana soudha Police station. In turn they have
4
C.C.No.1719/2020
registered the case under Crime No.0023/2019. Thereafter,police visited the spot, drew the mahazar, secured in the
presence of the accused persons subsequently were enlarged on
bail. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, I.O. has
submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the
offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 read with section 34 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet,
Court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused
persons and issued summons to them.
4. The accused have appeared before the court through
their counsel. Copy of the prosecution papers were furnished
under Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure. Thereafter,
heard both side, the charges against the accused persons for
the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 read with section 34 of IPC. Read over and explained to the
accused persons were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution have examined the eleven witnesses as PW-1 to
PW-11 and got marked the twenty one documents as Ex.P-1 to
5
C.C.No.1719/2020
Ex.P-21. The accused persons did not choose to lead defenseevidence. The Hard Disc is marked as MO.1. The statement of
the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused
the deposition and documents.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records,
the following points arose for my consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused No.1 and 2 were working in
the office of the Police Commissioner
as a computer operator and PVC
Department and in fact they were
joined together created the fraudulent
PVC Certificates in the computer in
the name of fake beneficiaries and
shows the said certificates were
genuine certificates to the
complainant and took the signature
from him by misusing their position
6
C.C.No.1719/2020
and thereby the accused persons havecommitted the criminal breach of
trust and committed the offence
punishable under section 409 read
with section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
above said place, date and time the
accused person for the purpose of
cheating they were joined together
created the fraudulent PVC
Certificates in the computer in the
name of fake beneficiaries and shows
the said certificates were genuine
certificates to the complainant and
took the signature from him by
misusing their position tarnished the
reputation of the department and
cheated the department and thereby
the accused persons have committed
7
C.C.No.1719/2020
the offence punishable under section420 read with section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
above said place, date and time the
accused person for the purpose of
wrongful gain they were joined
together created the 153 forged
computerized PVC Certificates in the
name of ACP Sri.Manjunath Babu and
10 PVC Certificates in the name ACP
Sri.Narayanaswamy in the computer in
the name of fake beneficiaries by
using the title of the department, the
accused persons totally forged 163
PVC certificates and took the
signature from the complainant on the
said forged documents and thereby
the accused persons have committed
8
C.C.No.1719/2020
the offence punishable under section
465 read with section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
above said place, date and time the
accused No.1 and 2 were joined
together forged the PVC Certificates in
the computer in the name of fake
beneficiaries and thereby the accused
persons have committed the offence
punishable under section 467 read
with section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
above said place, date and time the
accused No.1 and 2 for purpose of
cheating joined together forged the
PVC Certificates in the computer in
the name of fake beneficiaries with
intention to cheat the complainant
9
C.C.No.1719/2020
and thereby the accusedpersons have
committed the offence punishable
under section 468 read with section
34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
above said place, date and time the
accused No.1 and 2 for purpose of
cheating joined together forged the
PVC Certificates in the computer in
the name of fake beneficiaries and
shows the said PVC Certificates as
genuine to the complainant and
thereby the accused persons have
committed the offence punishable
under section 471 read with section
34 of IPC?
7. What order?
10
C.C.No.1719/2020
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials
available on records.
9. My findings 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 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.6 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.7 : As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 to 6: These above points are inter-
linked with each others and required similar type of
appreciation of evidence, Hence, they are taken together for
common discussion.
11. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined
eleven witnesses, the PW-1 is the complainant/DCP, PW-2 is
the Mahazar witness, PW-3 is the Mahzar witness, PW-4 and 5
are the Mahzar witness, PW-6 is the spot mahzar witness
11
C.C.No.1719/2020
(Scientific Officer), PW-7 is the Investigation officer, PW-8 is the
Retired Police Inspector, PW-9 is the other witness, PW-10 is
the Investigation officer, PW-11 is the Manager of Wipro
Technology out of them PW-4 and PW-5 fully turned hostile to
the prosecution case. PW-2 and PW-9 are the turned partly
hostile witness to the prosecution and got marked the Ex.P-1
to Ex.P-21 i.e., Ex.P-1 is the Complaint, Ex.P-2 is the Spot
Mahazar. Ex.P-3 is the Notice to Panchas, Ex.P-4 is the
Reminder Letter, Ex.P-5 is the Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P-6 is
the Police Notice, Ex.P-7 is the Statement of Sri.Manjegowda
K.B., Ex.P-8 to 11 are the Letters, Ex.P-12 is the Submission
letter, Ex.P-13 is the Police Verification Certificate, Ex.P-14 are
the 40 Police Verification Certificates, Ex.P-15 to 17 are the
Letters, Ex.P-18 is the Statement under section 164 of Cr.PC,
Ex.P-19 is the Statement of Sri.Mohammed Asifulla, Ex.P-20 is
the Truth Lab Forensic Lab Report and Ex.P-21 is the
Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1
and 2 were working in the office of the Police Commissioner as
a computer operator and PVC Department. and in fact they
12
C.C.No.1719/2020
were joined together created the fraudulent PVC Certificates in
the computer in the name of fake beneficiaries and shows the
said certificates were genuine certificates to the complainant
and took the signature from him by misusing their position and
thereby the accused have committed the above offences. After
completion of the investigation the PI of Vidhana Soudha Police
Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons
for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
13. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 406
of IPC.
Sec. 409 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 409 : Criminal breach of
trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent.- Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property in his
capacity of a public servant or in the way
of his business as a banker, merchant,
13
C.C.No.1719/2020
factor, broker, attorney or agent, commitscriminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Essential ingredients:- an offence under this section has
following essential ingredients ;
1. Accused is a public servant, merchant, agent, a
factor, broker or an attorney.
2. In his such capacity he was entrusted with
some property or he gained dominion over such
property.
3. He committed criminal breach of trust.
14. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 420 of
IPC.
Sec. 420 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 420: Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-
14
C.C.No.1719/2020
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter
or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
1. Essential ingredients are as follows;
1. Accused cheated the complainant.
2. Accused did so dishonestly.
3. Thereby induced the complainant:
(i) to deliver some property to accused or to some
other person.
(ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of the valuable security or anything which was
signed, sealed, and which was capable of being
converted into valuable security.
15
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. One of the ingredients of cheating as defined in
Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is existence of an
intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the
very beginning of formation of contract. S.V.L. Murthy v. State
Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) Supreme 399 : 2009 (7) JT
385 : (2009) 6 SCC 77 : (2009) 2 SCC (Crl) 941 : AIR 2009 SC
2717.
3. To constitute an offence under section 420, there
should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such
cheating, the accused should have dishonestly include the
person deceived (I) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii)
to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security
(or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being
coverted into a valuable security). Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar,
2009 (6) Supreme 470 : 2009 (11) JT 533 : 2009 (4) Crimes 13 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 929.
15. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 465
of IPC.
Sec. 465 of I P C Reads as follows:
16
C.C.No.1719/2020
Whoever commits forgery shall bepunished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.
16. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 467 of
IPC.
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-
Whoever forges a document which
purports to be a valuable security or a
will, or an authority to adopt a son, or
which purports to give authority to any
person to make or transfer any valuable
security, or to receive the principal,
interest or dividends thereon, or to
receive or deliver any money, movable
property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging
17
C.C.No.1719/2020
the payment of money, or an
acquittance or receipt for the delivery of
any movable property or valuable
security, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
17. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 468
of IPC.
Sec. 468 of I P C Reads as follows:
Forgery for purpose of cheating.-
Whoever commits forgery, intending that
the [document or electronic record forged]
shall be used for the purpose of cheating,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
18
C.C.No.1719/2020
Essential ingredients are as follows;
(i) Document in question is forged
(ii) Accused forged it.
(iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for
cheating.
18. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the
prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 471 of
IPC.
Sec. 471 of I P C Reads as follows:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly
uses as genuine any document which he
knows or has reason to believe to be a
forged document, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he had forged such
document.
19. PW-1 is the investigation officer in this case, who
has deposed in his chief examination that during the year
2018-2019, he was working as Assistant Commissioner of
Police, City Special Branch, Administration, Bangalore City The
19
C.C.No.1719/2020
accused No.1 was working in the DCP Intelligence Division and
the accused No.2 was working in his office. On 15.03.2019, it
was confirmed message that the accused were bringing bad
reputation to the department by producing fake Police
Verification Certificates and giving them to the concerned
persons for money. Later, when he questioned their
administrative staff and checked the computers, no information
was found against the accused persons. Later, he took
permission from DCP Shantaraju and checked the computer of
the accused No.1 with the help of their staff Chennamallappa
and found about 163 Police Verification Certificates on the hard
disk of the computer. When the said PVC were checked, it was
found that the original PVC serial number was on the said 163
PVC and the fee of Rs.450/- each payable on the said PVC had
not been paid. Out of the said 163 PVC, 153 PVC were created
in his name and 10 PVC in the name of ACP Sri.Narayana
Swamy. When he questioned the accused No.1, he said that he
needed money because his mother was not well. The accused
No.1 and 2 with the common intention of earning money 163
PVC were created and out of them 153 PVC were sent to his
office by the accused No.2 and his signature were obtained.
20
C.C.No.1719/2020
The said PVC were issued to the concerned persons and they
received from them Rs.700/- to Rs.1,000/- each. Out of the
said money he has paid Rs.200/- to the accused No.2 for each
PVC. When he questioned, the accused No.2 stated that he
had obtained signatures on fake PVC between January and
March while obtaining signatures on real PVC. The accused
were Government Employees who were misused their positions
to create fraudulent PVC and not pay the amount of Rs.450/- X
163 = Rs. 73,350/- to the Government Treasury, causing loss
to the Government and bring the bad reputation to the
department. Hence, he has filed a complaint against the
accused persons at Vidhana Soudha Police Station. He
identified the complaint marked as Ex.P-1 and identified his
signature marked as Ex.P-1(a). On 19.03.2019, the
investigating officer went to the DCP Intelligence Office and
inspected the spot and the computer that he had shown him in
the presence of five witnesses. The FSL experts were removed
the computer hard disk, covered the hard disk in a white cloth,
sealed it and obtained his signature. Thereafter, they were
prepared the detailed panchanama in between 01.00 PM to
05.45 P.M and obtained his signature on the panchanama. He
21
C.C.No.1719/2020
identified the Panchanama marked as per Ex.P-2 and he
identified his signature marked as per Ex.P-2(a). On
22.03.2019 the investigating officers of Vidhana Soudha, wrote
a letter to him, asking for details about the accused persons in
the said letter. He has also replied to the said letter on
26.03.2019. Similarly another letter came from the
investigating officers in which they seized 101 PVC certificates
and requested them to verify their authenticity and submit a
report. He has instructed to Gloria Christina of their
department to review the 101 PVC certificates and submit a
report. He has given reply to the investigation officer that out
of the 101 PVC certificates 61 were fake certificates and only 40
were genuine. He identified the documents marked as Ex.P-8 to
Ex.P-14 and he identified his signature marked as Ex.P-8(a) to
Ex.P-14(a). He identified one Hard disc which is marked as
MO.1. He identified the accused persons who were present
before the court.
20. PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that there is
no written order on what specific work was assigned to the
accused No.1 and 2. He admitted that the office where he work
22
C.C.No.1719/2020
and the DCP office or different. It is true that the 2nd accused
was working under his direction and supervision. He admitted
that at about 40 to 50 staffs are working under his jurisdiction.
He admitted that the Sakala counter is a single window count
that all the application come through the said counter. If the
application come to the counter No.1 then the application
documents are checked at the 2nd counter and sent to the next
counter. He admitted that the 2 nd counter checks whether
application has been paid or not, in the said DCP office there
are also ASI, Head Constable, Police Constable and Home
Guards. In the year 2019 there is no CC TV at DCP office,
corridor and cabin. He admitted that did not mentioned in the
Mahazar how many certificates are original and how much
duplicate. He admitted that as per the Ex.P-2 the accused No.1
did not used the computer. He admitted that entire Bengaluru
City their office only issued the PVC Certificate. He admitted
that in their office issued the PVC Certificate, job verification
certificate. He admitted that the department inquiry was
conducted about the accused persons. He denied the
suggestion that he lodged the false complaint against the
accused.
23
C.C.No.1719/2020
21. PW-2 is the Mahzar witness he deposed in his chief
examination that he is DCP Admin Anuchetha IPS gave the
memo to him and to attend during the mahzar time.
Accordingly, they agreed and went to Police Commissioner
Office, Bengaluru at Infantry Road, 3rd Floor. Further he
deposed that for the purpose of investigation they seized the
one shut down computer. Further deposed that the FSL
department opened it and seized the hard disk in his presence.
Later he put the signature to the mahazar. The above said
computer belongs to DELL. He did not know the serial number
of internal hard disk. The said disk covered by the cloth and
sealed it with respect to that he gave the statement. The
witness identified the notice marked as Ex.P-3, the signature is
marked as Ex.P-3(a). The witness identified his signature in
the Ex.P-2, the signature is marked as Ex.P-2(b).
22. During the course of cross examination by the
learned APP pw2 admitted that the said computer DELL
Optiplex990, the said service tax No.G4BNWQ1, Express
Service Tax No.35089973353 and manufacture date
No.2012/01/07. He admitted that the said seized internal hard
24
C.C.No.1719/2020
disk belongs to Seagate company. The said serial
No.Z2AHFL81. He admitted that the capacity 500 GB . He
admitted that the experts used the hard disk serial
No.Z2AHFL81 through the software right blocker they submit
the Hash report.
23. During the course of cross examination by the
learned counsel for the accused pw2 deposed that the said
notice issued at office at the time he was working he residing at
Nelamangala. Usually he came to office at 10.00 am. He
admitted that for the purpose of mahazar their higher officer
called him. He admitted that he obey the higher officer order
and also he put the signature. He don’t know about the case in
personally. He denied the suggestion that the mahzar prepared
at Police station and not seized any articles in his presence. He
don’t remember serial number and hard disk belongs to which
company. He don’t know the Laptop belongs to which company.
24. PW-3 is the mahazar witness who has deposed in
his chief examination that on 18.03.2019 the DCP passed an
order to attend the mahzar in the presence of investigation
officer in Crime No.23/2019 of Vidhana Soudha Police station.
25
C.C.No.1719/2020
That on 19.03.2019 the investigation officer of this case
instructed him to attend the DCP Office of intelligence. At the
time the investigation officer shown the system, the said system
was shut down, at that time the system admin, investigation
officer, complainant he himself, PW-4 and experts of FSL were
present. He further deposed that they intimated to him that
the accused persons created forged Police verification
certificates and they used as genuine with respect to that the
expert opened hard disk in the CPU. After the investigation
officer covered in the cloth and sealed the letters in V.S. After
the investigation officer pasted the slip along with the signature.
The witness identified the signature in the hard disk marked as
MO.1 and his signature marked as MO.1(a). The witness
identified his signature in the mahazar marked as Ex.P-2(c).
The witness identified signature in Ex.P-3 as his signature is
marked as Ex.P-3(b). The witness identified the order copy
marked as Ex.P-4.
25. During the course of cross examination by the
learned counsel for the accused pw3 deposed that he has no
complete knowledge regarding the computer hardware and
26
C.C.No.1719/2020
software. The MO-1 is hard disk obtained belongs to
Government. He further deposed that the investigation officer
not told him the system purchased when and did not shown the
stock register at the time of mahazar. He admitted that the
investigation officer did not shown before taken the hard disk in
the computer. He admitted that the investigation officer did not
shown what is there in the hard disk. He admitted that at the
time of mahazar the accused persons were not present.
26. The PW-6 is the scientific officer FSL. He deposed in
his examination that on 19.03.2019 the Vidhana Soudha PSI
sent the requisition in the said requisition stated that for seize
the computer in the Commissioner Office building. On the
same day in the office the mahazar witness Ravi and
Ravikumar and ACP Manjunatha Babu were present. He
verified the computer the said computer was switched off. After
he took the hard disk in the said computer, the said hard disk
500 seagate hard disk. He further deposed that he connected
the hard disk to his department Laptop and generated the same
and gave the investigation officer. Accordingly, he gave
27
C.C.No.1719/2020
statement to the investigation officer. He identified the
signature in Ex.P-2, as his signature is marked as Ex.P-2(d).
27. During the course of cross examination by the
learned counsel for the accused pw6 deposed that the
computers usually called as system. He further deposed that
who use the computers are called as system administrators, the
witness called as user. He further deposed that seize the MO.1
there was no procedure made. He denied that the said system
admin had took out MO.1 outside when he and Christopher
went to the place. He had not put his signature in the MO.1.
He further deposed that he himself and CW-1 put the signature
in the office to the Ex.P-2.
28. The PW-7 is the Police Inspector who has deposed in
his chief examination that on 16.03.2019 he received the case
records from PSI Bheemappa for the investigation, that on
18.03.2019 he sent the letter to the DCP Administration to
provide mahazar witness, the witnesses has seen the letter
dated 18.03.2019 and marked as Ex.P-15 and his signature is
marked as Ex.P-15(a). On the same day he given the request
letter to the Director FSL Expert’s. He identified the requisition
28
C.C.No.1719/2020
letter marked as Ex.P-16 his signature marked as Ex.P-16(a).
That on 19.03.2019 he visited the place of crime and conduct
mahazar in the presence of the CW-4 and 5 and the place
indicated by the CW-1. He received the one sea gate computer
hard disc in the presence of the CW-1 and 7 the said mahazar
was conducted from 01.00 pm to 05.40 pm. The witness
signature marked as Ex.P-2(e), the witnesses identified his
signature in MO-1 his signature is marked as MO-1(b) and he
adopted in PF No.25/2019. The same day he received the
statement of CW-4 to 17. That on 21.03.2019 he visited the
Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels Institute and received the 101
PVC Certificates from CW-10 and 11. He identified the
signature in Ex.P-5 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-5(c).
That on 22.03.2019 sent the request to the ACP Branch for
explain the nature of the accused duty and other details. He
identified the signature in Ex.P-9 and his signature is marked
as Ex.P-9(b). The witnesses identified his signature in Ex.P-11
his signature marked as Ex.P-11(b). That on 26.03.2019 as per
the Ex.P-8 he received the report from the ACP Office.
29
C.C.No.1719/2020
29. The PW-7 admitted in his cross examination that the
Commissioner Office is one kilo meter from their station. He
admitted that there was a no problem inspecting the place on
the day of visited the place. There was no entry for any
password for the computer shown in Ex.P-2. He has not made
any entry in the final report about giving notice to the FSL
Inspector. He has not submitted the final report. He denied
that signature put in the Ex.P-5 mahazar witness they are not
local persons. He admitted that not mentioned in the Ex.P-10
who were doing the work along with the accused persons. He
admitted that not received the any statement from Roopadevi
working at DCP office and he admitted that he did not received
any statement from Glory Christina.
30. The PW-8 is the Retired Police Inspector who has
deposed in his chief examination that on 20.12.2019 he
received the hard disc and some records from the CW-14 with
respect to this case and he continued the investigation and
send the hard disc and documents for examination purpose to
the director FSL. That on 24.12.2019 he filed the charge sheet
against the accused persons due to not came to the FSL report.
30
C.C.No.1719/2020
He identified the letter dated 20.12.2019 marked as Ex.P-17
signature marked as Ex.P-17(a).
31. The PW-8 he denied in his cross examination that
when the complainant is our senior office he take their advise
and guidance and conduct the investigation, in this case it is
correct to say that the complainant is senior officer than to me.
All their reports and the letters in the investigation file indicate
that authority, position and rank of the complainant used. He
admitted that in all Districts our State have FSL and RFS. He
admitted that according to Police manual and standing order
usually send the records to the RFS for the investigation. After
received the report. He admitted that if the case is serious or
highly specialized it is send to FSL in Hyderabad. He denied
the suggestion that generally when the Police persons or
accused the case is considered sensitively. He admitted that
the truth lab is a private organization. He don’t know the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the integrity of the Truth
Lab in a case. Generally any person can pay money and get
report in Truth Lab. He denied the suggestion that they have
sent a false report against the accused in Truth Lab.
31
C.C.No.1719/2020
32. The PW-9 is the private company employee who has
deposed in his chief examination that he don’t know CW-1 as
well as the accused person. He was working at Rajarajeshwari
Tours and Travels as a computer operator from 2017 to 2020.
The accused No.1 did not came to his office with regard to that
he gave the statement to the Police. He deposed that he
received the information from the Police and this owner the
accused persons created the documents. He further deposed
that the Police have said that you have to say as I have told you,
so I have given statement in the court under section 164of
Crpc as they told may, I have given a statement to the Police
with regard to this case, apart from this matter I have not told
the Police anything else.
33. During the course of cross examination by the
learned APP he denied that he has told the Police that was
working as a computer operator, diesel indent and PVC
Certificate makers at Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. But
the witnesses says that I was not working as a PVC Certificate
make similarly in my statement in April 2018 I had collected
32
C.C.No.1719/2020
the service charges of Rs.450/- from the Bengaluru One Center
in MS Building to get the PVC Certificates for 42 Drivers.
34. He denied the suggestion that after one month he
received the 42 application, PVC Certificates from
Commissioner Office single window counter. He denied the
suggestion that after 10 months he called the
P.Narayanaswamy and inquired him regarding PVC Certificate.
He denied the suggestion that he paid the 13,400/- to the
Narayanaswamy and received the 26 applications PVC
Certificates. He denied the suggestion that he knew the all the
facts but deposed the false evidence before the court. He
denied the suggestion that even though given the statement to
the Police on 21.03.2019 he deposed the false evidence.
35. During the course of cross examination by the
accused counsel the PW-9 admitted that Ravi Kiran is the
owner of the Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. He admitted
that there are more than 100 Drivers and office staff working at
Rajarajeshwari Tours and Travels. He admitted that the said
Ravikiran went to Police station and he called me. He admitted
that at about till 11.00 am he was in Police station. He
33
C.C.No.1719/2020
admitted that Inspector Manjunath V.S received his statement
at 20th SCH Court. He admitted that first time he seen the
accused persons at Commissioner office when during the
departmental inquiry otherwise he did not seen the accused
person at any point of time.
36. The PW-10 is the Police Inspector who has deposed
in his chief examination that on 19.06.2019 he received the
case records from CW-13 for the purpose of investigation. That
on 12.08.2019 he received the anticipatory bail from the
accused persons, Later he received the voluntary statement of
accused persons. After he obtained the surety he released the
accused persons. That on 20.09.2019 he was transferred to the
Siddapura Police Station for that reason he transferred the case
record to the CW-15 and he identified the accused before the
court.
37. The PW-10 deposed in his cross examination that it
is not correct to say that after obtaining voluntary statements
from the accused persons, it found the accused persons have
not committed any crime. He admitted that he has taken the
voluntary statement of accused persons before him. He
34
C.C.No.1719/2020
admitted that at the time of voluntary statement the DCP and
ACP were forced the accused persons. He admitted that in their
voluntary statements the DCP told them to accept otherwise
the department would get a bad name, if they accept they
would take care of them without any trouble. He admitted that
he has not taken statement from ACP and DCP. He admitted
that he transferred on 20.09.2019. He denied the suggestion
that he has giving false evidence after listening the words of
ACP and DCP.
38. The PW-11 is the Deputy Director of Truth Lab who
has deposed in his chief examination that he worked as a
Scientific Office since 2010 to 2020. On 26.12.2019 the
Vidhana Soudha Police Station sent a cover with requisition
letter along with hard disc and 61 pages. In the said letter
they want to know if the 61 pages are there or not in hard disc.
He marked the said Hard disc in the letter Q and also marked
the said 61 pages as T-1 to T-61. The investigation officer to
imagine the Q Hard disc image and analysis they were given
another hard disc. The said Hard disc marked in the letter S
and they were saved Q Hard disc and image in the S letter hard
35
C.C.No.1719/2020
disc. He has given hash value report of both the hard disc.
After analyzing of T-39, 44, 51, 52, 55 to 61 were there in Hard
disc Q. Page No.38 was saved in the hard disc as T-51 and also
saved in T-5 and T-53 in the hard disc. T-59 is there in serial
No.Q Hard disc but there is found that name and other details
is were in different. They also found one excel document in
Hard disc Q. In the said hard disc Q they found T-1 to T-61
document details. He forward the report by sealed cover to the
investigation officer on 06.06.2020. In his report T-1 to T-61
documents were created in the said hard disc. He identified the
MO-1 and he identified his signature marked as MO.1(a). He
identified the FSL Report marked as Ex.P-20 and he identified
his signature marked as Ex.P-20(a). He identified the
certificate under section 65(B) of indian evidence Act as Ex.P-21
and he identified his signature marked as Ex.P-21(a).
39. In the cross examination the PW-11 admitted that
Truth Lab Forensic Company is a private company. She
admitted that anyone can submit a request to their institution
and get a report. She admitted that in her institution they
entered an application the purpose for which this request has
36
C.C.No.1719/2020
been submitted. She further admitted that they charge a fee for
providing the said report. She can’t say who will bear the fee
for the report in this case. She admitted that anyone can copy,
paste, edit and replace on the hard disc. She could not say
about the hard disc of remaining data. She admitted that did
not mentioned in the Ex.P-1 certificate in which system collect
the information and transfer.
40. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the
following decisions;-
1. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 623 in the case of
Mustafikhan V/s State of Maharashtra,
In Page No.625 and Para No.9 it is held
that;- In order to sustain a conviction
under section 409 IPC the prosecution is
required to prove that (a) the accused, a
public servant was entrusted with property
of which he was duty-bound to account for,
and (b) the accused had misappropriated
the property.
37
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 630 in the case of
Dadarao V/s State of Maharashtra
In Page No.632 and Para No.7 it is held
that;- In the vague state of the record it
seems to us impossible to dismiss the
explanation of the appellant as
unreasonable. There is no evidence of
entrustment, no evidence in regard to the
mode and manner of keeping the accounts
and not even a suggestion that the cash on
hand was at any time tallied or checked
either at Chikhli or at Buldana. The High
Court observes in its Judgment that “the
prosecution has conducted this case
without placing before the Court the
detailed information as to how the working
of the Head office and the branch office goes
on. No effort is made to ask questions, if
not to an employee in service, at least to the
auditor about the nature of business
38
C.C.No.1719/2020
conducted and the method of maintaining
accounts. That would have facilitated the
understanding as to why certain credits and
debits are made”. Absence of evidence on a
material and important aspect renders it
unsafe to hold that the charge of breach of
trust is brought home to the appellant.
3. (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 70 in the case of
N.Raghavender V/s State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI.
In Page No.78 it is held that;- The
appellant also contended that the charges
under Section 409 and Section 420 IPC
cannot go together since the essential
ingredients of the two offences are
conflicting in nature. Section 409 (or 405)
IPC deals with offences where the accused
has been “entrusted” with the property and
Section 420 IPC deals with offences where
the accused has “dishonestly induced” the
victim/complainant to depart with the
39
C.C.No.1719/2020
property in question. It was, therefore,
argued that an accused cannot be charged
under both the sections simultaneously.
This contention, however, has been
rendered academic in the light of the
aforesaid discussion and conclusion(s). The
question is left open for adjudication in
appropriate proceedings.
I have perused the above decisions relied by the advocate
for accused persons which are applicable to the present facts of
the case on hand.
41. In the instant case the PW-4 and PW-5 are turned
fully hostile witness to the prosecution. PW-2 and PW-9 are
turned partly hostile witness to the prosecution case.
42. The PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he
did not mentioned in the Mahazar how many certificates are
original and how many duplicate. He admitted that as per the
Ex.P-2 the accused No.1 did not used the computer. He
admitted that in the entire Bengaluru City their office only
40
C.C.No.1719/2020
issued the PVC Certificate. The PW-2 admitted in the cross
examination that for the purpose of mahazar their higher officer
called him. He admitted that he obey the higher officer order
and also he put the signature. He don’t know about the case in
personally. The PW-3 admitted in his cross examination that
the investigation officer did not shown before taken the hard
disk in the computer. The PW-7 in his cross examination he
admitted that there was a no problem inspecting the place on
the day of visited the place. The PW-8 in his cross examination
he admitted that according to Police manual and standing order
usually send the records to the RFS for the investigation. The
PW-10 admitted in his cross examination that at the time of
voluntary statement the DCP and ACP were forced the accused
persons. He admitted that in their voluntary statements the
DCP told them to accept otherwise the department would get a
bad name. The PW-11 admitted in his cross examination that
the Truth Lab Forensic Company is a private company. She
admitted that anyone can submit a request to their institution
and get a report.
41
C.C.No.1719/2020
43. In this case, the prosecution has failed to elicit from
PW-1 to PW-11 anything favorable to it to prove the allegations
under section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section
34 of IPC against the accused persons. When these being the
facts, I am of the opinion that in total the prosecution has failed
to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this court hold Point
Nos.1 to 6 in the Negative.
44. Point No.7: For the reasons stated and finding given
to point No. 1 to 6, the following is made.
ORDER
The accused No.1 and 2 are not found
guilty for the offences punishable under
section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read
with section 34 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 and 2
are hereby acquitted for the offences
42
C.C.No.1719/2020
Punishable under section 409, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond
executed by them stand canceled.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer, typed by him, revised, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of July, 2025).
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1: Sri.H.Manjunath Babu S/o Azeez;
PW-2: Sri.Ravi.S S/o M.T.Sundara;
PW-3: Sri.Ravikumar G.S S/o G.S.Swamy;
PW-4: Sri.Manjegowda K.V. S/o Beeregowda;
PW-5: Sri.Prabhakar S/o Lakshman Gowda;
PW-6: Sri.Vedamurthy S/o Rudrappa;
PW-7: Sri.Manjunath B.S. S/o Shivaramaiah;
PW-8: Sri.K.T.Nagaraju S/o Late.Thimmappa;
PW-9: Sri.Mohammed Asifulla S/o Mohammed Shafiulla;
PW-10: Sri.B.Shankarachar S/o Late.Basavalingachar;
PW-11: Sri.S.Neeru S/o V.Sridhar.
43
C.C.No.1719/2020
2. List of witnesses examined for the defense:
– NIL –
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint dated 15.03.2019;
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-2 : Spot Mahzar;
Ex.P-2(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-2(b) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-2(c) : Signature of PW-3;
Ex.P-2(d) : Signature of PW-6;
Ex.P-2(e) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-3 : Notice to Panchas;
Ex.P-3(a) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-3(b) : Signature of PW-3;
Ex.P-4 : Reminder Letter dated 18.03.2019;
Ex.P-5 :Seizure mahazar;
Ex.P-5(a) : Signature of PW-4.
Ex.P-5(b) : Signature of PW-5;
Ex.P-5(c) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-6 : Police Notice;
Ex.P-6(a) : Signature of PW-5;
Ex.P-7 : Statement of Sri.Manjegowda K.B.;
Ex.P-7(a) : Part of the statement;
Ex.P-8 : Letter dated 26.03.2019;
Ex.P-8(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-8(b) : Signature of PW-7;
44
C.C.No.1719/2020
Ex.P-9 : Letter dated 22.03.2019;
Ex.P-9(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-9(b) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-10 : Letter dated 26.03.2019;
Ex.P-10(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-10(b) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-11 : Letter dated 22.03.2019;
Ex.P-11(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-11(b) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-12: Submission letter dated 26.03.2019;
Ex.P-12(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-12(b) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-13 : Police Verification Certificate;
Ex.P-13(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-14 : 40 Police Verification Certificates;
Ex.P-14(a) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-15 : Letter dated 18.03.2019;
Ex.P-15(a) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-16 : Letter dated 18.03.2019;
Ex.P-16(a) : Signature of PW-7;
Ex.P-17 : Letter dated 20.12.2019;
Ex.P-17(a) : Signature of PW-8;
Ex.P-18 Statement under section 164 of Cr.PC;
Ex.P-18(a) : Signature of PW-9;
Ex.P-19 : Statement of Sri.Mohammed Asifulla;
Ex.P-20 : Truth Lab Forensic Lab Report;
Ex.P-20(a) : Signature of PW-11;
45
C.C.No.1719/2020
Ex.P-21 : Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act and
Ex.P-21(a) : Signature of PW-11.
4. List of documents exhibited for the defense:
– NIL –
5. List of Materials objects exhibited for the prosecution:
MO.1 : Hard disk;
MO.1(a): Signature of PW-11 and
MO.1(b): Signature of PW-7.
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
[ad_2]
Source link