Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayukta vs N.Shanthkumari on 12 August, 2025
KABC010191112015
IN THE COURT OF LXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act), BENGALURU.
(CCH No.79)
Present: Sri. Nandeesha. R.P., B.A., LL.B., LLM.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
C/c LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge (Special Judge P.C. Act.),
Bengaluru.
Dated: 12th August 2025
Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Complainant: The State of Karnataka
Represented by the Lokayukta Police,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Reptd., by Ld., Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: Smt. N. Shanthakumari
BBMP Member,
Ward No.127, Moodalapalya,
Bengaluru.
R/at No.03, 4th B Cross,
Byraweshwara Nagar,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru560 072.
(Reptd., by Sri. Parameshwara N.
Hegde, Advocate)
2 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Date of commission of offence : From 25.11.1996 to
17.12.2011
Date of report : 02.11.2011
Date of arrest of accused : Not arrested
Date of release of accused on bail : 07.09.2015
Date of commencement of evidence : 22.07.2019
Date of closure of evidence : 06.03.2023
Name of the complainant : Sri. M. Jayaram
Offence complained of : Section 13(1)(e)
r/w. Section13(2) of
the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta, City
Division, Bengaluru, by name Sri. Mohamad Mukaram
has laid this charge sheet against the accused, for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The complainant Sri. M. Jayaram has given a
written complaint to the office of the Lokayukta,
Bengaluru, in turn office of the Lokayukta has referred
3 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the case to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, City
Division, Bengaluru for investigation. On the basis order
of the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta
police, City Division, Bengaluru, CW73/PW2 has
registered the case in Cr.No.67/2011. CW73/PW2,
CW74/PW8, and CW75/PW9 have conducted
investigation, after completion of the investigation, PW9
has laid this Charge Sheet against the accused making
allegation the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e)
r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
On 25.11.1996 the accused by name Smt. N.
Shanthakumari was elected as councilor of BBMP and
she was also a member of various Standing Committees
of BBMP from December1997 to November2006 and
she was also a Deputy Mayor from November 2004 to
December 2005, on the date of raid she was a member of
BBMP. During the check period, which starts from
25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, total value of assets of the
4 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015accused and her family members was Rs.2,72,89,920
75, total expenses of the accused and her family
members was Rs.1,61,00,35364 and total income of the
accused and her family members was Rs.2,95,38,275
67, thus during the check period the accused was found
in possession of disproportionate assets of
Rs.1,38,51,99872 i.e., 46.90% excess to her known
source of income and she could not give satisfactory
accounts for the disproportionate assets thereby, the
accused has committed the aforesaid offence. Thus,
according to the prosecution, value of the assets,
expenditure and income of the accused and her family
members during the check period are:
Assets Rs.2,72,89,92000
Expenditure Rs.1,61,0035300
Income Rs.2,95,38,27500
Disproportionate Assets Rs.1,38,51,99800
(46.9%)
4. As there are primafacie materials to take
cognizance, cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 was taken and process was issued
5 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015against the accused. In response to the summons, the
accused has appeared through her counsel and she was
on bail. Heard arguments of both sides on question of
charges and as there are sufficient materials to frame
charges, the charges were framed against the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read
over and explained to the accused in the language
known to her, after understanding the same, the
accused has not pleaded guilty and she claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined
9 witnesses and got marked 142 documents. The witnesses
examined by the prosecution are as under:
Sl. Witness Name of the Evidence given Exhibits
No. Number witness about marked
Submission of his
complaint before
office of Lokayukta,
obtaining
information from
PW1/ Sri. M. Ex.P1 to Ex.P
1. BBMP office about
CW1 Jayaram 32
service and salary of
the accused,
production of
documents about
properties of
6 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015accused and her
family members.
Registration of FIR,
receipt of documents
from offices of Sub
Registrar, BBMP
Ex.P33 to
office, Schools,
PW2/ Sri. Anjan Ex.P44 and
2. Colleges, Banks, LIC
CW73 Kumar K. Ex.P46 to Ex.P
office, RTO office
117
etc., Search and
Mahazar in the
houses of accused
and her relatives.
Search and Mahazar Ex.P47(b)
Sri. in the house of Ex.P47(c),
PW3/
3. Gangarudrai accused Ex.P49(b)
CW2
ah Ex.P49(c),
Ex.P49(d)
Search and Mahazar
PW4/ Sri.
4. in the house of one Ex.P52(a)
CW5 Sreedhar
Sri. Gopal
Assessment of
construction cost of
PW5/ Sri. R. buildings, which Ex.P108 (a) to
5.
CW10 Nithin belong to the Ex.P108 (h)
accused and her
family members
Providing APRs
details, details of
service of the
Sri. Dr. K. N.
PW6/ accused in BBMP,
6. Chandrashe Ex.P75(a)
CW8 her salary and
kar
allowance details to
the Investigating
Officer
Assessment of cost of
PW7/ Sri. H.A. maintenance and
7. Ex.P77(a)
CW50 Upendra expenses incurred
for rearing of dogs
8. PW8/ Sri. Receipt of property Ex.P118 to P
CW74 Narasimham documents and 127 and P135
urthy P. details of expenses of
the accused and her
husband
7 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Receipt of details of
expenditure of the
Sri. Ex.P108(i),
PW9/ accused, receipt of
9. Mohamed Ex.P136 to
CW75 documents of
Mukaram Ex.P142
properties and
registration of FIR
6. The documents got marked by the prosecution are
as under:
Witness
through
Exhibit
Nature of document whom the
number
document
marked
Ex.P1 Copy of Form. No. 1 (Complaint) PW1
Copies of information obtained
Ex.P2 PW1
under RTI
Copy of affidavit of the accused filed
Ex.P3 PW1
before the Election Commission.
Copy of the sale deed dated
Ex.P4 PW1
02.07.2003
Ex.P5 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P6 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P7 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P8 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P9 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P10 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P11 True copy of GPA PW1
Ex.P12 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P13 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P14 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P15 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P16 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P17 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P18 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P19 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P20 True copy of the sale deed PW1
8 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Ex.P21 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P22 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P23 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P24 True copy of the sale deed PW1
Ex.P25 True copy of the agreement of sale PW1
Ex.P26 True copy of the agreement of sale PW1
True copy of the agreement of sale
Ex.P27 PW1
deed
True copy of the agreement of sale
Ex.P28 PW1
deed
True copy of the agreement of sale
Ex.P29 PW1
deed
True copy of the agreement of sale
Ex.P30 PW1
deed
Ex.P31 True copy of agreement of sale. PW1
Ex.P32 True copy of the ale deed PW1
Authorization order by S.P.,
Ex.P33 PW2
Lokayuktha
Ex.P34 FIR PW2
Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P2 Sy.No.
Ex.P35 PW2
169 and E.C.,
Sale deed of Site No. 2/83/2,
Nagarabhavi and Sale deed of Site
Ex.P36 PW2
No. 2/83/2 of Nagarabhavi and
E.C.,
Sale deed of site No. 78 of
Ex.P37 Nagarabhavi, memorandum of PW2
deposit of title deed and E.C.,
Account statement of H. Ravikumar
Ex.P38 PW2
in Union Bank.
Sale deed of Site No. 83/74,
Ex.P39 PW2
Nagarabhavi and E.C.,
Sale deed of Site No. 78,
Ex.P40 PW2
Nagarabhavi and E.C.,
Sale deed of Site No. 152,
Ex.P41 PW2
Nagarabhavi and E.C.,
Ex.P42 Sale deed of Site No. 2/83/2 of PW2
Nagarabhavi, sale deed of Site No.
47 of Malagala Village, sale deed of
Katha No. 821 and E.C.,
9 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Bank account statement of accused
Ex.P43 PW2
in Syndicate Bank.
Bank account statement of
Ex.P44 PW2
husband of accused in ICICI Bank.
Ex.P46 Report of Search Warrant PW2
Ex.P47 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P48 P.F. PW2
Ex.P49 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P50 Report of Police Inspector PW2
Ex.P51 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P52 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P53 Search warrant PW2
Ex.P54 House search mahazar PW2
Ex.P55 Report of Police Inspector PW2
Ex.P56 P.F. PW2
Loan account statement and A/c.
Ex.P57 No. 635 in Rajajinagar CoOperative PW2
Bank of H. Ravikumar
E.C. of Site No. 2/83/2 of
Ex.P58 PW2
Nagarabhavi
Account statement of H.
Ex.P59 Ravikumar in Janatha Seva Co PW2
Operative Bank
Account statement of H.
Ex.P60 PW2
Ravikumar in Canara Bank
Agreements of sale dated
09.09.2008, 11.07.2008,
Ex.P61 PW2
28.08.2008, 09.09.2008 &
28.08.2008
Accounts statement of accused in
Ex.P62 PW2
Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P63 Mobile bill statement of accused. PW2
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P7 and
Ex.P64 PW2
16/P7
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P4 and sale
Ex.P65 PW2
deed of Sy.No. 16/P4
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P6 and
Ex.P66 PW2
16/P6
Sale deed of Sy.No. 16/P5 and
Ex.P67 PW2
16/P5
10 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Sale deeds of Sy.No. 50/P3 and
Ex.P68 PW2
50/P5
Ex.P69 Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P5 PW2
Ex.P70 Sale deed of Sy.No. 50/P4 PW2
Sale deed and consent deeds of
Ex.P71 PW2
Sy.No. 67,
Ex.P72 BSNL phone bill statement PW2
School fee details of son of the
Ex.P73 PW2
accused Sharath Kumar
Details of premium paid towards
Ex.P74 PW2
Reliance Policies
Details of period of service of the
Ex.P75 PW2
accused given by BBMP.
Details of stamp duty, gift deed in
Ex.P76 PW2
favour of husband of accused.
Details of expenses of rearing of
Ex.P77 PW2
dogs.
Passport particulars of accused and
Ex.P78 PW2
her husband.
College fee details of son of the
Ex.P79 PW2
accused Sharath Kumar.
LIC policy details of husband and
Ex.P80 PW2
sons of accused.
Ex.P81 Details of Bescom bills PW2
Ex.P82 Vehicle details of K.A.41 S 5319. PW2
Ex.P83 Details of health insurance. PW2
Account statement of accused in
Ex.P84 PW2
Canara Bank.
Ex.P85 LIC policy details and premium PW2
Ex.P86 Revenue receipts etc., PW2
Ex.P87 ITR details of accused PW2
SBI account details of son of the
Ex.P88 PW2
accused Bharath Kumar
College fee details of son of the
Ex.P89 PW2
accused Bharath Kumar
LIC policy details of husband of the
Ex.P90 PW2
accused
Ex.P91 Muthoot Finance loan details PW2
Ex.P92 Revenue details of the properties of PW2
husband of the accused
11 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Revenue details of the properties of
Ex.P93 PW2
husband of the accused
Ex.P94 Sale deed PW2
Medical expenses details of the
Ex.P95 PW2
accused.
Ex.P96 Letter of Bescom PW2
Details of Registration and stamp
Ex.P97 duty of Site No. 48, Rajarajeshwari PW2
Nagar, Bengaluru.
Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank
Ex.P98 PW2
accounts statement of the accused.
Details of electricity charges paid by
Ex.P99 PW2
husband of the accused.
Details of electricity charges paid by
Ex.P100 PW2
husband of the accused.
Details of electricity charges paid by
Ex.P101 PW2
husband of the accused.
Details of purchase of solar water
Ex.P102 PW2
heater.
Janatha Seva CoOperative Bank
Ex.P103 PW2
details of husband of the accused.
Registration and Stamp duty details
Ex.P104 PW2
of site No. 38/2 of Mallathalli
Details of water charges and deposit
Ex.P105 PW2
in BWSSB.
Registration and Stamp duty details
Ex.P106 of site assessment No. 47 of PW2
Nagarabhavi
Registration and Stamp duty details
of Sy.No. 64/1, 64/2 and 64/3 site
Ex.P107 PW2
assessment No. 47 of Nagarabhavi
Report of cost of construction of
Ex.P108 PW2
buildings.
Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
Ex.P109 accounts statement of husband of PW2
accused.
Ex.P110 Details of fee paid by husband of PW2
accused towards the sketch for
construction of house No. 47,
Malagala, Bengaluru.
12 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P111 paid towards Site assessment No. PW2
83/1 of Nagarabhavi
Details of School fee paid for
Ex.P112 education of son of the accused PW2
Bharath Kumar.
Details of School fee paid for
Ex.P113 education of son of the accused PW2
Bharath Kumar.
Kanaka Loka CoOperative Bank
Ex.P114 PW2
account details of the accused.
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P115 paid towards Sy.No. 10, 46/3 and PW2
46/4.
Education fee details of son of the
Ex.P116 PW2
accused Sharath Kumar
SBI account details of son of the
Ex.P117 PW2
accused Sharath Kumar
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P118 paid towards assessment No. 47 PW8
(Katha No. 2875)
Details of expenses made by
Ex.P119 husband of the accused in Gold PW8
Finch Hotel.
Details of membership fee paid by
Ex.P120 the husband of the accused in PW8
Satellite Club.
Details of property tax paid by
husband of the accused for Sy.No. 3
Ex.P121 PW8
(Property No. 47 and 48), Malagala
Village.
Details of water charges paid by the
Ex.P122 husband of the accused for Site No. PW8
3.
Details of payment made towards
Ex.P123 PW8
gas connection and cylinders.
Details of payment made towards
Ex.P124 PW8
gas connection and cylinders.
Ex.P125 Education fee details of son of the PW8
accused Bharath Kumar.
13 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Ex.P126 Sale deeds of Sy.No. 67 . PW8
Details of gold loan obtained by
Ex.P127 PW8
husband of the accused.
Ex.P128 Authorization of S.P. given to PW9. PW9
Ex.P129 Report of invisible expenditure PW9
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P130 paid towards Katha No. 47 (Site No. PW9
8)
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P131 paid towards Municipal No. 55 (Site PW9
No. 14)
Stamp duty and registration fee
Ex.P132 paid towards Katha No.821 (Site PW9
No. 2 and 3)
Details of account of H. Ravikumar
Ex.P133 PW9
in Rajajinagar CoOperative Bank.
Copy of sale deed and other details
Ex.P134 of Site No. 74 (Assessment No. 83) PW9
Nagarabhavi.
Authorisation given by S.P.
Ex.P135 PW8
Lokayukta to PW8
Details of stamp duty and
registration fee paid for Sy.No.
Ex.P136 PW9
83/1 (Site No. 2 and 3 of
Mudalapalya.
Details of water fee paid for
Ex.P137 BWSSB in respect of Site No. 3 of PW9
Mudalapalya.
Documents traced out at the time of
Ex.P138 PW9
mahazar
Copies of rent agreements dated
Ex.P138 (a) PW9
03.11.2006 and 17.09.2006
Copies of rent agreements dated
03.10.2007, details of allowance
Ex.P138 (b) PW9
paid to the accused and statement
of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P139 Copies of documents PW9
Ex.P139 (a) Details of revenue paid by the PW9
accused, copies of gift deed, sale
deed etc.,
14 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Copies of ITRs acknowledgement
Ex.P140 PW9
etc.,
Ex.P141 (a) to Receipts of purchase of electronic
PW9
Ex.P141 (o) items
Ex.P142 Phone bills and travel expenses PW9
7. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the
accused was examined, her statement was recorded as
contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure
Code, wherein the accused has denied all incriminating
evidence appeared against her and she has chosen to
lead evidence on her side. In order to probabalise her
defence, the accused has got examined 7 witnesses
including herself and got marked 6 documents as per
Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. The witnesses examined and
documents got marked by the accused are as under:
Sl. Witness
Name of the witness Evidence given about
No. No.
Business of husband of the
1. DW1 Sri. Y.S. Srinivas accused and sale transaction with
him
Money transaction between the
2. DW2 Sri. K. Ravikumar accused and his father
Krishnamurthy
Golden ornaments said to be kept
3. DW3 Sri. Manjula
in the house of accused
Money transaction between him
4. DW4 Sri. A.S. Manjunath
and husband of the accused
Money transaction between him
5. DW5 Sri. Kariyappa
and husband of the accused
15 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Relationship with the accused,
his business, income, purchase of
properties, receipt of gifts, golden
6. DW6 Sri. H. Ravikumar
ornaments and properties
purchased and sold by him and
his wife.
About family members, nature of
7. DW7 Sri. Shanthakumari N. work of her husband, her income,
her job, her APR and ITR etc.,
8. The documents got marked by the accused on her
side are as follows:
Exhibit Witness through whom
Nature of document
number marked
Ex.D1 Sale agreement DW1
Ex.D2 Death Certificate DW2
Ex.D3 Hand Loan Agreement DW2
Ex.D4 Affidavit of Smt. S. Manjula DW3
Ex.D5 Hand Loan Agreement DW4
Ex.D6 Hand Loan Agreement DW5
9. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. The
learned counsel for the accused has also submitted his
written arguments twice. The Learned Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel for the accused have also relied on
several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble
High Courts. The learned public prosecutor has relied on
following decision:
16 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
i. 2021 (4) Crimes 141 (SC), (Central Bureau of
Investigation and Anr., v/s Thommandru Hannah
Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr);ii. 2017 (6) Supreme Court Cases 263 (State of
Karnataka v/s J. jayalalitha and others);iii. Crl.A. No.996/2011 (Mr. E.D. Prasad v/s State
of Karnataka) by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
accused has relied on the following decisions:
i). 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 379 (State of
Maharastra v/s Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla);
ii). G. Malliga, Selvaraj and others v/s. State (High
Court of Madras);
iii). (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 (State of
Maharashtra v/s Wasudeo Ramachandra
Kaidalwar);
iv). (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 (M. Krishna
Reddy v/s State Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Hyderabad);
v). (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 442 (Vasant
Rao Guhe v/s State of Madhya Pradesh);
vi). 2000 CRI.L.J. 1178 (Subhash Kharate v/s
State of M.P.);
vii). (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 185 (Kaptan
Singh and Others v/s State of MP and Others);
viii). (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171 (Vijender
v/s State of Delhi);
17 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
ix). (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 62 (Director of
Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi v/s Ranaq
Education Foundation);
x). (1995) 1 SCR 185 (Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v/s Ogale Glass
Works Ltd, Ogale Wadi);
xi). 1998 SCC OnLine AP 752 (G.V.S Lingam v/s
State of A.P.);
xii). 1963 SCC OnLine SC 48 (Sajjan Singh v/s
State of Punjab);
xiii). Crl.A.No.53/2017 (Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Madras);
xiv). 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4053 (Virendra Singh
v/s Central Bureau of Investigation).
11. After hearing the arguments of learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and
perusal of the materials on record, the points that arise
for consideration of this Court are:
1. Does the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt, that the accused
being a public servant in the capacity
of a Corporator of BBMP, Ward No.127
and also member of several Standing
Committees of the BBMP, during the
check period from 25.11.1996 to
17.12.2011 was found in possession
of disproportionate assets worth
about Rs.1,38,51,99872 i.e., 46.90%
disproportionate to her known source
18 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015of income, for which she could not
satisfactorily account, thereby the
accused has committed the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What order ?
12. After hearing the arguments of both sides,
perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on
record and applying the principles of the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court which
have been relied on by both sides, I have answered the
above said points as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that at the time
of filing of the charge sheet the accused was not a public
servant and hence no sanction is required hence no
sanction order obtained to file the charge sheet. It is also
an admitted fact that, the accused has challenged order
of this Court dated 25.03.2019 in Crl.R.P.No.551/2019
19 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
before the Hon’ble High Court, in that petition the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that ‘if
the accused is not a public servant for a period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the assets said to have been
earned by the accused for the said period cannot be
taken note of by the trial court at the time of considering
the merits of the matter’.
14. After hearing the arguments of learned public
prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused and perusal
of oral and documentary evidence, I came to know that
there is no evidence on record to show that the accused
was a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. In
his crossexamination, the investigation officer/ PW9
has admitted that from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the
accused was not a public servant. The prosecution has
not disputed the defence of the accused that the accused
ceases to be a public servant for the period 24.11.2006
to 22.04.2010. As stated above, the investigating officer
has taken the check period from 25.11.1996 to
17.12.2011. The accused has not disputed the case of
20 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the prosecution that the accused was a public servant
from 25.11.1996 to 23.11.2006 and from 23.04.2010 to
17.12.2011. Further, the accused has not disputed the
sanctioning order and also the authorization issued for
investigating officers of the Lokayukta for investigation of
the case. Before proceeding to discuss the factual
aspects, I keep in mind the settled principles to be
followed in deciding a case under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act. To substantiate the
charge, the prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 13(1)(e), namely:
(1) the prosecution must prove that the accused is a
public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the
pecuniary resources or property which are found in his
possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his
known source of income i.e., known to the prosecution,
(4) it must prove that the resources or property found in
possession of the accused were disproportionate to his
known source of income. If the prosecution has
successfully proved these ingredients to the satisfaction
21 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015of the Court, the burden shifted to the accused to
account for such resources or property. If the accused
not able to account for such resources or property the
offence under Section 13(1)(e) becomes complete, if he
able to account for the properties which he owns, then
the prosecution has made out no case. I have also kept
in mind that the accused should account for his
properties to the satisfaction of the Court means he has
to establish his case by preponderance of probabilities
and it is not necessary for him to establish his case by
proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of
burden placed on his is not the same as one placed on
the prosecution. Keeping in mind these settled principles
of law, I proceed to discuss oral and documentary
evidence and also the points urged by both sides at the
time of arguments.
15. Arguments of the learned public prosecutor:
(a). In Crl.R.P. No.551/2019 the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka has directed this court not to consider
22 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
‘assets’ of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010 and the Hon’ble High Court has not directed
not to consider expenditure, hence expenditure incurred
by the accused in this period should be taken into
consideration. Issue of check period has already been
settled before the Hon’ble High Court, so this court
should confine to that order of the Hon’ble High Court, if
this court gives different interpretation, it would
amounts to contempt. Since the accused has not proved
what was her income before the check period, question
of considering spilling over income does not arise, the
prosecution has successfully proved the mahazar, raid
in the house of accused, the investigating officer has
collected all documents pertaining to the assets, income
and expenditure of the accused and lead evidence of
witnesses who supported case of the prosecution,
thereby the prosecution has proved that the accused
was having disproportionate assets during the check
period hence, she is liable for conviction.
23 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
16. Arguments of learned counsel for the
accused:
(a). In view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, this Court cannot consider the
assets acquired by the accused during the period
between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, similarly this Court
has to exclude the expenditure incurred by the accused
and her family members. As per the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra vs.
Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, if the income is
probabalized, same has to be given credit to the accused,
since the Investigating Officer has admitted and
furnished the details of the income received by the
accused and her family members during the period
between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, income of the
accused during this period has to be taken into
consideration. The burden of proof is always on the
prosecution and accused is not bound to prove his
innocence beyond all reasonable doubt and he needs to
bring out preponderance of probability, but the
prosecution has failed to prove that during the check
24 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
period the accused was in possession of disproportionate
assets. In his chief examination, PW9 who is the
Investigating Officer has not stated the reason for taking
particular assets as assets of the accused and so also
the expenditure. The Investigating Officer has not
considered the spilled over income, the accused and her
husband were having income before the check period
and also in the middle of the check period when the
accused was not a public servant, thus there is a defect
in investigation and the Court has to consider the spilled
over income. The investigating officer has not deposed
assigning reason for excluding certain income of the
accused and her family members. Fixation of the check
period is not only wrong but also unscientific.
17. In the light of this argument of learned public
prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, I have
gone through the order of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka has ordered not to consider
assets for a period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 if the
25 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused was not a public servant during that period. On
the other hand, the prosecution has also not objected
the contention of the accused that the accused was not a
public servant in for during a period from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010. Undisputed fact is that this Court has
framed charge on 25.03.2019, wherein the check period
is considered as from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011. The
accused has filed Crl.R.P. No.551/2019 after framing of
the charge and accused has not challenged the check
period considered by this Court while framing charge.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has not
split the check period, but directed this court not to
consider the assets during the period 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010 if the accused is not a public servant in that
period. As aforesaid, when the Hon’ble High Court has
issued this direction, this Court has to consider the
expenses made and income earned by the accused
during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not the
assets of accused. It is pertinent to note that as argued
by the learned counsel for the accused, in the final
26 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
report, the Investigating Officer has not stated anything
about the assets and income of the accused on the day
immediately before the check period. The arguments of
the learned counsel for the accused is that the spilled
over income and assets have to be taken into
consideration by the Court. But the learned public
prosecutor has argued that there is no compulsion
under law to consider previous income, income means
the income known to the prosecution, if there was a
spilled over income accused has to establish it through
his evidence.
18. Admittedly, nowhere in the final report, the
investigating officer has mentioned about spilled over
income of the accused before commencement of check
period, but the accused has also not even stated what
was her income and assets immediately before the check
period, though the husband of the accused and the
accused are examined on defence side as DW6 and DW
7 respectively, they have not deposed that they were
having certain income and assets previous to the check
27 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
period. It is settled principles of law that ‘known source
of income’ means ‘income known to the prosecution’. If
really the accused was having some income and assets
before commencement of check period, she should have
disclosed it before the investigation officer or before the
court. In her schedule submitted to the investigating
officer by the accused, she has not stated that she was
having certain income and assets before commencement
of the check period. Even in the cross examination of
PW9, the learned counsel for the accused has not
suggested that the accused was having some assets and
income immediately before the check period i.e., before
25.11.1996 and but he has not considered it. Apart from
this, the accused has also not contended that spilled
over income was used to purchase the assets in the
check period. Thus, the accused has not probabalised
existence of the assets spilling over from anterior period.
During the course of arguments also the learned counsel
for the accused has not mentioned what was the spilled
over income of the accused and what are all the assets
28 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
existing immediately before the date of check period.
Interestingly, even in her schedule which was submitted
to the Investigating Officer, the accused has not
mentioned about her assets and income which were said
to be existing immediately before the check period.
Therefore, I decline to give credit to the accused on the
income side.
19. Further arguments of the learned counsel for
the accused is that the investigation is biased one, it
involved political element, the check period should
provide correct picture, the check period considered by
the investigating officer would prejudice the accused. In
this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has
relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 379
(State of Maharashtra v/s Pollonji Darabshaw
Daruwalla). In this decision the Hon’ble Supreme court
has held that:
16. the choice of the period must
necessarily be determined by the allegations of
fact on which the prosecution is founded and
29 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015rests. However, the period must be such as to
enable a true and comprehensive picture of the
known sources of income and the pecuniary
resources and property in possession of the
public servant either by himself or through any
other person on his behalf, which are alleged to
be so disproportionate. In the facts and
circumstances of a case, a ten year period
cannot be said to be incapable of yielding such
a true and comprehensive picture. The assets
spilling over from the anterior period, if their
existence is probabalised, would, of course,
have to be given credit to on the income side
and would go to reduce the extent and the
quantum of the disproportion”.
20. I have applied the principles of the decision to
the case on hand. In the present case, the investigating
officer has taken the check period from 25.11.1996 to
17.12.2011. As aforesaid, the accused has filed Crl.R.P.
No.551/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, wherein it is held that:
‘…However, the observation made by the
learned trial judge that taking advantage of
the definition that the public servant is to be
construed for the purpose of appreciating the
case of the prosecution is concerned, it is
crystal clear that if the accused is not a
public servant for a period 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, the assets said to have been
earned by the accused for the said period
cannot be taken note of by the trial court at
30 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015the time of considering the merits of the
matter….’
21. Thus, after considering the check period taken
by the investigating officer, the Hon’ble High Court has
held as mentioned above. Further, the check period
considered by the investigation officer is taken to assess
the assets, expenditure and income of the accused after
excluding the period mentioned by the Hon’ble High
Court, the period taken is capable and sufficient to get
true comprehensive picture of assets, expenditure and
income of the accused. Further, the accused has not
probabalised existence of spilling over income from
anterior period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
check period would not prejudice the accused in any
way.
22. The learned counsel for the accused has further
argued that, in his entire chief examination Investigating
Officer (PW9) has not spoken the reason for taking
particular assets as assets of the accused so also the
expenditure, similarly he has not deposed assigning
31 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015reason for excluding certain income of the accused and
her family members, therefore the Court cannot decide
the case relying only on the investigation in the absence
of evidence. In this regard the learned counsel for the
accused has relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 185
which arose between Kaptan Singh and others vs.
State of MP and another and also (1997) 6 SCC 171
which arose between Vijender vs. State of Delhi. The
gist of these decisions is that ‘a trial court is required to
base its conclusion solely on the evidence adduced during
the trial and it cannot rely on the investigation or the
result thereof’. It is further held that ”the result of
investigation under Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure
Code is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws
on the basis of materials collected during the investigation
and such conclusion can only form the basis of a
competent court to take cognizance there upon under
Sec.190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case for
trial, where the materials collected during investigation
32 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015are to be translated into legal evidence’. I have applied
principles of this decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court to
the case on hand. In the background of observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have gone through the
evidence of PW9. After perusal of para No.1 to 169 of
the evidence of PW9, I came to know that Investigating
Officer has deposed on the basis of the materials
collected during at the time of Investigation. The
Investigating Officer has also gone through the
documents while giving evidence which were collected in
the case during the course of investigation and he has
also deposed why he has accepted the contents of the
documents and report of the experts. At para No.169 of
his evidence, PW9 has deposed why and how he
concluded that the accused and her family members
were having disproportionate assets during the check
period. When that being the case, argument of the
learned counsel for the accused that Investigating Officer
has not spoken the reason for taking particular assets as
assets of the accused and so also the expenditure and he
33 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015has not given reason for excluding some income hence
his evidence cannot be considered for decisions of the
case, not holds good. After given findings to the legal
questions raised by the learned counsel for the accused,
I proceed to discuss about the assets said to be earned
by the accused during the check period.
23. As per the final report, the Investigating Officer
has considered assets under 73 heads, out of 73 heads
of assets, the accused has not disputed 42 heads of
assets and she has disputed only 31 heads of assets.
The heads of assets and their value/ purchase price,
which are considered by the investigating officer and
heads of assets and their value/price, according to the
accused are as follows:
Property Value of assets as
Sl. Description of Value of assets as
Code per investigating
No. Assets per the accused
No. Officer
Value of the site and
Construction cost on Rs.3,60,00000 + Rs.3,60,00000 +
1 A11
Site No.63 & 64 of (2 Rs.22,33,93000 Rs.15,00,00000
& 3) of Nagarabhavi
Value of the 3 acres of
land in Sy.No.16,
2 A12 present No.16/p7 of Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000
Menasi Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of Site
3 A13 No.2/83/2 of Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000
Nagarabhavi Village
34 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Value of the site and
Rs.1,32,00000 + Rs.1,32,00000+
4 A14 Construction cost on
Rs.22,80,49700 Rs.11,50,00000
Site No.47 of Malagala
Value of Site No.2 & 3
5 A15 of Nagarabhavi Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000
Village, Mudalapalya
Value of 2 acre 33
guntas at Sy.No.16,
6 A16 present No.16/p7 of Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000
Menasi Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of 3 acre at
Sy.No.16, present
7 A17 No.16/p7 of Menasi Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of 3 acre at
Sy.No.16, present
8 A18 No.16/p7 of Menasi Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of Site No.1, 4th
‘B’ Main Road,
9 A19 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000
Byraveshwara Nagar,
Nagarabhavi
Value of site and
Construction cost on Rs.30,00,00000 + Rs.30,00,00000 +
10 A110
Site No.78 of Rs.6,99,60500 Rs.3,00,00000
Nagarabhavi
Value of 1 acre of land
in Sy.No.50/p3,
11 A111 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of 1 acre of land
in Sy.No.50/p5,
12 A112 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of 1 acre of land
in Sy.No.50/p4,
13 A113 Kannamangala Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Purchase price of
14 A114 Sy.No.67, Rs.10,00,00000 Rs.00
Doddaballapura
Purchase price of
15 A115 Sy.No.464/1 of Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.00
Kollegala
16 A116 Purchase price of Rs.25,00000 Rs.00
Sy.No.78/A1B1 of
Kollegala
35 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Purchase price of
17 A117 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Rs.62,50000 Rs.00
Kollegala
Purchase price of
18 A118 Sy.No.116/B of Rs.25,00000 Rs.00
Kollegala
Purchase price of
19 A119 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00
Sy.No.88 of Kollegala
Purchase price of
20 A120 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00
Sy.No.116 of Kollegala
Purchase price of
21 A121 Sy.No.228/1 of Rs.40,00000 Rs.00
Kollegala
Purchase price of
22 A122 Sy.No.50/p2 of Rs.25,00,00000 Rs.00
Kollegala
Value of site No.14,
Ward No.38,
23 A123 Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000
Nagarabhavi Main
Road
Construction cost on
24 A124 Site No.8 of Rs.15,27,36400 Rs.9,00,00000
Nagarabhavi
Value of property
bearing Assessment
25 A125 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000
No.47, Katha No.2875
of Nagarabhavi Village
Purchase price of Site
26 A126 Rs.3,36,00000 Rs.00
No.48 of Malagala
Value of Sy.No.169 of
Kannamangala
27 A127 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Village,
Doddaballapura
Value of property
bearing House List
28 A128 Rs.00 Rs.00
No.5, Katha No.1200
of Mallathalli Village
Value of Site No.7,
29 A129 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi Village
Value of Sy.No.64/1,
64/2 & 64/3 of
30 A130 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000
Ranganathapura,
Doddaballapura
Value of Sy.No.10,
46/3 & 46/4 of
31 A131 Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000
Chikkadevarahalli
Village, Kanakapura
Value of Site No.8,
32 A132 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi Village
33 ABA1 Balance amount in Rs.57800 Rs.57800
A/c.
No.4242010090711 of
36 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Syndicate Bank
Balance amount in
34 ABA2 A/c. No.15901520429 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300
of ICICI Bank
Balance amount in
A/c.
35 ABA3 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600
No.563402010000577
of Union Bank
Balance amount in
A/c. No.014995 of
36 ABA4 Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300
Janatha Cooperative
Bank
Balance amount in
A/c.
37 ABA5 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500
No.31941401001774
of Canara Bank
Balance amount in
A/c.
38 ABA6 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600
No.04282010104266
of Syndicate Bank
Balance amount in
A/c. No.635 of
39 ABA7 Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800
Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank
Balance amount in
A/c.
40 ABA8 Rs.38,14,65300 Rs.14,65300
No.8401101027550 of
Canara Bank
Balance amount in
41 ABA9 A/c. No.31665883104 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000
of State Bank of India
Balance amount in
A/c. No.3812 of
42 ABA10 Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200
Cauvery Kalpataru
Gramina Bank
Balance amount in
A/c. No.64074953326
43 ABA11 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700
of State Bank of
Mysore
Payment made to
44 AB1 Souharda Credit Co Rs.5,52500 Rs.00
operative Ltd.,
Payment made to
45 AB2 Souharda Credit Co Rs.5,52500 Rs.00
operative Ltd.,
Share Certificate No
003275 of Janatha
46 AB3 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000
Seva Cooperative
Bank
Shares in GGSE
47 AB4 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000
Financial Ltd.,
48 AV1 Value of Honda Deo Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800
No.KA41HM5319
37 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Gold articles found in
49 AJ the house of the Rs.17,45,70000 Rs.8,64,22500
accused
Silver articles found
50 ASA in the house of the Rs.1,59,90000 Rs.00
accused
Household articles
51 AHA found in the house of Rs.10,33,91300 Rs.4,11,80000
the accused
52 ALIC1 LIC premium Rs.80,00000 Rs.00
53 ALIC2 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00
54 ALIC3 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00
55 ALIC4 LIC premium Rs.2,19,22000 Rs.1,09,20000
56 ALIC5 LIC premium Rs.2,17,53000 Rs.1,09,17000
57 ALIC6 LIC premium Rs.1,60,64400 Rs.80,32200
58 ALIC7 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.54,98100
59 ALIC8 LIC premium Rs.1,66,60800 Rs.83,30400
60 ALIC9 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.54,98100
BESCOM deposit
61 ADE1 towards House No.3, Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000
Byraveshwara Nagar
BESCOM deposit
62 ADE2 towards House No.3, Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000
Byraveshwara Nagar
BESCOM deposit
63 ADE3 towards House No.47, Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000
Malagala
BESCOM deposit
towards House No.8,
64 ADE4 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000
Nagarabhavi Main
Road
BESCOM deposit
65 ADE5 towards House No.78, Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000
Nagarabhavi
Telephone deposit
66 ADT1 towards Phone Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000
No.08023217778
BWSSB deposit
67 AWC1 towards House No.47 Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000
of Malagala
BWSSB deposit
towards House No.3
68 AWC2 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000
of Byraveshwara
Nagar
Membership for
69 AC1 Bangalore Gurmith Rs.3,86000 Rs.00
Club
Membership for Sati
70 AC2 Rs.10,65500 Rs.00
Light Club
71 AGC1 Payment made Rs.80000 Rs.80000
towards Gas
38 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Payment made
72 AGC2 Rs.1,90000 Rs.1,90000
towards Gas
Deposit towards
73 ACM1 Rs.2,40000 Rs.2,40000
mobile
Total Rs.2,72,89,92000 Rs.1,34,03,87500
24. As the value of assets taken by the investigating
officer and the accused is contrary to each other, I
proceed to discuss the heads of ‘assets’ one by one so as
to arrive at a conclusion about possession of assets by
the accused, their purchase price etc.,
A. ASSETS OF ACCUSED
(I). AI1: Site Nos.63 and 64 in assessment
No.83/1 and the building, in Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru:
(a). As per the final report, husband of the
accused by name H. Ravikumar has purchased these
sites on 17.01.2003 for a sum of Rs.3,60,00000 and
he has put up a residential house over these sites,
cost of the construction was Rs.22,33,93000, cost of
construction of the building has been assessed by the
Executive Engineer, who has submitted the report,
hence the Investigating Officer has considered
Rs.25,93,93000 as an asset of the accused.
39 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(Rs.3,60,00000 as purchase price of the sites and
Rs.22,33,93000 as cost of construction). PW2 who
has collected documents from office of SubRegistrar,
Peenya, Bengaluru has got marked those documents
as Ex.P111. PW9 has deposed about purchase price
of the site and cost of construction. The accused has
admitted purchase value of the sites, but he has not
admitted the case of the prosecution that husband of
the accused has spent Rs.22,33,93000 for
construction a residential building in the said sites.
The learned public prosecutor has argued that the
prosecution has proved purchase value as well as
cost of construction by examining PW5, hence same
has to be considered as asset of the accused. In order
to prove its contention, the prosecution has got
marked certified copy of the sale deed dated
17.03.2003 as Ex.P5 through PW1, which says that
Sri. H. Ravikumar has purchased site No.63 and 64
for Rs.3,60,00000. At para No.11 of his evidence,
PW9 has deposed that he has considered purchase
40 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
price of the sites on the basis of Ex.P111. A perusal
of Ex.P5 and Ex.P111 (copy of the sale deed which
is at page No.455 of Book No.3(1), shows that
husband of the accused has purchased these sites for
Rs.3,60,00000. As aforesaid, the accused has not
disputed purchase price of the sites, but he has
objected cost of construction of the building.
Therefore, I would like to discuss only about the cost
of construction of the building.
(b). As per the Final Report, the building was
assessed by PW5, who is the Executive Engineer who
has reported that cost of construction of the building
was Rs.22,33,93000, hence the Investigating Officer
has considered the same towards asset of the
accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued
that Investigating Officer has got assessed the cost of
construction through PW5 who visited and assessed
the cost, apart from that the prosecution has also got
examined PW5, if the accused was not satisfied with
the Report of an expert, she should have got assessed
41 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the building, but no assessment report is filed by the
accused, hence Report given by PW5 cannot be
rejected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the accused has argued that in his cross
examination, PW5 has admitted that he has not
enquired owner of the building while assessing the
property, he has not verified the materials used for
the construction and his Report does not
accompanied with the Notification or Circular
indicating the rate adopted by him to calculate the
cost of construction. He further argued that in his
evidence, husband of the accused (DW6) has
deposed that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to 15
lakhs for construction and there is no suggestion by
the learned prosecutor in this regard, therefore value
of the property is to be considered as Rs.15,00,000
00.
(c). In his chief examination, DW6 has deposed
that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs for
construction of the house. In his crossexamination,
42 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
DW6 has denied the suggestion of the learned public
prosecutor that he has not produced any document
to show how much amount has spent for
construction of the house. But no document has been
produced by the accused or by DW6 to show cost of
construction. DW6 has further denied the suggestion
of the learned Public Prosecutor that he falsely
deposed that he spent rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs for
construction of the house. But DW6 has admitted
the suggestion of the learned Public prosecutor that
he has put up ground floor in 1,400 sq.ft., 1st floor in
1,200 sq.ft. and flooring of the 1st floor is made of
granite and he used teak wood. PW5 has deposed
that he has visited site No.2 and 3 of Nagarabhavi
Village on 12.09.2012, he has measured ground floor,
1st floor and 2nd floor and assessed the cost of the
construction as per the Circular of the Department of
Karnataka State Registration and Stamps. A perusal
of Report of PW5, which is marked as Ex.P108 and
P108(a) makes it clear that PW5 has measured
43 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
ground floor, 1st and 2nd floor, he has fixed the price
as per the Notification of the Department of
Karnataka State Registration and Stamps and hold
that cost of the construction was Rs.22,33,93000.
(d). The Report further reveals that the building
assessed by him was of RCC building, flooring was of
granite and used teak wood. In Ex.P108(a), PW5 has
mentioned that he has considered the measurement
and the materials used for the construction to assess
cost of the building. In his crossexamination, PW5
has denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for
the accused that the Circular of the Department of
Karnataka State Registration and Stamps is only for
registration of the document. It was further
suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that
he had to assess the cost of the construction on the
basis of the Notification of the PWD. For this
suggestion witness has stated that there was no such
Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel
for the accused that though PW5 has denied his
44 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
suggestion, cost of the building has to be assessed as
per the notification of Public Works Department. No
doubt, notification of Karnataka Registration and
stamps is only for the purpose of registration of
document, but not to assess the cost of the buildings.
The Karnataka Public Works Department issues
Karnataka Schedule of Rates for Buildings
comprising of the Specifications, Rate Analysis &
Technical details for the State Engineers time to time
in the form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore,
I am of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed
the building on the basis of the specification given in
the notification of the year by the Karnataka Public
Works Department. Apart from this, in his cross
examination, PW5 has stated that he has not
enquired owner of the building and he has assessed
the cost of the building on the basis of the materials
seen by him and he did not find out what are all other
materials used for construction. I am of the opinion
that unless an expert dig the ground to know what
45 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
materials used to put up basement and to dig the
wall and pillars to know what type of cement used for
construction of walls and what was the quality of
pillars used to put up 1st and 2nd floors, one cannot
assess the cost of the building. Further, PW5 has not
deposed whether he was an expert to assess or find
out what type of wood used for doors, cupboards and
windows.
(e). It is the argument of the learned counsel for
the accused that Report of PW5 is not accompanied
with the Circular based on which rate has been
applied. After I have gone through the report (Ex.P
108), I came to know that PW5 has specifically
mentioned that on the basis of Notification of the
Department of Karnataka State Registration and
Stamps he has assessed the building, which is to be
used for the purpose of registration of immovable
properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is
accepted, definitely it would cause injustice to the
accused. Now, the question is, if report of PW5 is not
46 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accepted what is the way to conclude about cost of
construction. Admittedly, the accused has not got
assessed the cost of construction and not produced
any document to show that cost of construction was
only Rupees 14 lakhs to 15 lakhs. But, primary
burden was on the prosecution to prove that husband
of the accused has spent an amount of
Rs.22,33,93000 for construction of the building, if
the prosecution able to prove its contention then only
the burden shifts on the accused to substantiate his
contention or to rebut the case of the prosecution. It
is pertinent to note that admittedly, husband of the
accused has got constructed the building, therefore
considered view of this court is that in the absence of
acceptable evidence on cost of construction, husband
of the accused is the proper person to say about cost
of construction. When the prosecution has failed to
substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of the
court that cost of construction is Rs.22,33,93000,
admitted cost of construction has to be accepted. In
47 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
his chief examination, DW6 has specifically deposed
that he has spent Rupees 14 lakhs to Rupees 15
lakhs for construction of the building and he
withstood his cross examination. Therefore, I have
accepted the case of the accused that he had spent
Rupees 15 lakhs for construction of the building.
Accordingly, I have considered cost of construction at
Rs.15,00,00000. Thus, the total value of Asset No.1
ie., AI1 is considered as Rs.18,60,00000 (purchase
price of site: Rs.3,60,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.15,00,00000).
(II). AI2: 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16/p7 of
Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer, by considering sale
deed dated 02.07.2003 has taken this site as an
asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the
accused had purchased this site for Rs.2,40,00000
and the accused has admitted this fact and
submitted that he has no objection to consider this
property as an asset of the accused. The prosecution
48 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015has also got marked copy of sale deed dated
02.07.2003 as Ex.P64. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted this property (AI2) as an
asset of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.2,40,00000.
(III). AI3: Site No.2/83/2 of Khata No.2964 of
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). The investigating officer, by considering sale
deed dated 27.03.2003 has taken this site as an
asset of the accused. Admittedly, husband of the
accused had purchased this site for Rs.3,30,00000
and the accused has admitted this fact and
submitted that he has no objection to consider this
property as an asset of the accused. The prosecution
has also got marked copy of sale deed dated
27.11.2003 as Ex.P42. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted this property (AI3) as an
asset of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.3,30,00000.
49 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(IV). AI4: Site No.47 in Sy.No.3 of Malagala,
Yeshwanthpura and a building on this site:
(a). As per the final report, on 23.06.2004
husband of the accused Sri. H. Ravikumar has
purchased this property for Rs.1,32,00000 and
constructed a building spending Rs.22,80,49700,
hence this property is considered as an asset of
accused and its value at Rs.24,12,49700. The
accused has not disputed purchase of the site for
Rs.1,32,00000 and construction of the building on
it. But the accused has disputed the contention of
the prosecution that cost of construction is
Rs.22,80,49700. As there was no dispute regarding
purchase value of the site and as the sale deed dated
23.06.2004 (Ex.P7) states that the site was
purchased for Rs.1,32,00000, I considered
purchase price of the site at Rs.1,32,00000.
(b). Now, cost of the construction of the building
has to be decided. As aforesaid, as per the contention
of the prosecution, cost of construction is
Rs.22,80,49700, but the accused has contended
50 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
that it is Rs.11,50,00000. As discussed under AI1
above, PW5 has assessed the cost of the building on
the basis of the Notification of the Department of
Karnataka State Registration and Stamps, but not on
the basis of Notification of Karnataka Public Works
Department. PW5 has given a report which is at
Ex.P108(e). It was the suggestion of the learned
counsel for the accused that he had to assess cost of
the construction on the basis of the Notification of
the PWD. For this suggestion witness has stated that
there was no such Notification. It is the argument of
the learned counsel for the accused that though PW
5 has denied his suggestion, cost of the building has
to be assessed as per the notification of PWD. No
doubt, the notification of Karnataka Registration and
stamps is only for the purpose of registration of
document, but not to assess the cost of the buildings.
The Karnataka Public Works Department issues
Karnataka Schedule of rates for Buildings comprising
of the Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical
51 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
details for the State Engineers time to time in the
form of G.O. for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that PW5 should have assessed the
building on the basis of the specification given in the
notification of the year of the Karnataka Public Works
Department. Apart from this, in his cross
examination PW5 has stated that he has not
enquired the owner of the building and he has
assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the
materials seen by him and he did not find out what
are all other materials used for construction. I am of
the opinion that unless an expert dig the ground to
know what materials are used to put up basement,
unless he dig the wall to know what type of cement
used for construction of walls and what was the
quality of pillars used for construction to put up 1st
and 2nd floors, one cannot assess the cost of the
building. Further, he has not deposed whether he
was an expert to find what type of wood used for
doors, cupboards and windows.
52 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(c). It is the argument of the learned counsel for
the accused that Report of PW5 is not accompanied
with the Circular based on which rate has been
applied. After I have gone through the report [Ex.P
108(e)], I came to know that PW5 has mentioned
that on the basis of Notification of the Department of
Karnataka State Registration and Stamps he has
assessed the building, which is to be used for the
purpose of registration of immovable properties. In
that event, if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely
it would cause injustice to the accused. Now, the
question is if report of PW5 is not accepted what is
the way to conclude about cost of construction.
Admittedly, the accused has not got assessed the
cost of construction and not produced any document
to show that cost of construction was only
Rs.11,00,00000 to Rs.11,50,00000. But, primary
burden was on the prosecution to prove that
husband of the accused has spent an amount of
Rs.22,80,49700 for construction of the building, if
53 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the prosecution was able to prove its contention then
only the burden shifts on the accused to substantiate
his contention or to rebut the case of the prosecution.
It is pertinent to note that admittedly, husband of the
accused has got constructed the building, therefore it
is considered view of this court that in the absence of
acceptable evidence on cost of construction, he is the
proper person to say about cost of construction.
When the prosecution has failed to substantiate its
contention to the satisfaction of the court that cost of
construction is Rs.22,80,49700, admitted cost of
construction has to be accepted. DW6 has
specifically deposed that building was constructed in
the years 2004 in which there were 12 rented houses,
it was constructed under his supervision and he has
spent Rs.11,00,00000 to Rs.11,50,00000.
Therefore, I have accepted the case of the accused
that he had spent Rs.11,50,00000 for construction
of the building. Thus, total value of asset No.AI4 is
considered as Rs.12,82,00000 (purchase price of
54 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
site: Rs.1,32,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.11,50,00000).
(V). AI5: Site Nos.2 and 3 in Sy.No.83/1 of
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated
06.07.2004, the investigating officer has taken these
properties as assets of the accused. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased these sites
for Rs.8,21,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that he has no objection to
consider these sites as assets of the accused. The
prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale
deed as per Ex.P10. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted these sites as assets of
the accused and its purchase value at Rs.8,21,000
00.
(VI). AI6: 2 acres 33 guntas of land in
Sy.No.16/p4 of Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the
sale deed dated 10.03.2005 has considered this
55 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
property as an asset of the accused. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.2,82,50000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that she has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her
asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of
the sale deed, dated 10.03.2005 as Ex.P13, which
proved purchase of this property by husband of the
accused for Rs.2,82,50000. Therefore, without
further discussion, I have accepted this property as
an asset of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.2,82,50000.
(VII). AI7: 3 of acres land in Sy.No.16/p4 of
Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the
sale deed dated 04.03.2005 has added this property
to the list of assets of the accused. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.3,00,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that he has no objection to
56 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
consider purchase value of this property as her
asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of
the sale deed as per Ex.P14, which state that
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.3,00,00000. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset
of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.3,00,00000.
(VIII). AI8: 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16/p5 of
Menasi village:
(a). The investigating officer on the basis of the
sale deed dated 07.03.2005 has considered this
property as an asset of the accused. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.3,00,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that he has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her
asset. The prosecution has also got marked copy of
the sale deed as per Ex.P12, which states that
husband of the accused had purchased this property
57 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
for Rs.3,00,00000. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted this property as an asset
of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.3,00,00000.
(IX). AI9: Site No.1 of Khata No.1233 and
Assessment No.83 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). On the basis of the sale deed dated
05.04.2006, the investigating officer has considered
this property as an asset of the accused and its
purchase value at Rs.1,00,00000. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.1,00,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that he has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her asset.
The prosecution has also got marked copy of the sale
deed as per Ex.P39, as per this document husband
of the accused had purchased this property for
Rs.1,00,00000. Therefore, without further
discussion, I have accepted this as an asset of the
accused and its purchase value at Rs.1,00,00000.
58 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(X). AI10: Site No.78, situated at 8 th block, of
Nagarabhavi Extension, Bengaluru and the building
constructed on this site:
(a). As per the contents of final report, on
25.06.2006 husband of the accused has purchased
this property for Rs.30,00,00000 from one
Chaudhari and put up a building over it by spending
Rs.6,99,60500, this property is considered as an
asset of accused and total price of the site was
Rs.30,00,00000 and cost of construction is
Rs.6,99,60500, hence, total amount of
Rs.36,99,60500 is considered as an asset of the
accused. Though the accused has admitted purchase
value of the site, she has not admitted cost of
construction and she has contended that building
was constructed by spending Rs.3,00,00000 only.
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has
got marked copy of the sale deed and other related
documents as Ex.P40. But a perusal of Ex.P40
makes it clear that this site was purchased by the
accused on 25.01.2006 for Rs.30,00,00000 and not
59 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
by the husband of the accused on 25.06.2006. The
accused has not disputed purchase of the site for
Rs.30,00,00000 and construction of the building on
it. As there was no dispute regarding purchase value
of the site and as Ex.P40 states that the site was
purchased for Rs.30,00,00000, I have considered
purchase value of the site as Rs.30,00,00000.
(b). Coming to the construction cost of the
building, as aforesaid, as per the contention of the
prosecution cost of construction is Rs.6,99,60500,
but the accused has contended that she spent only
Rs.3,00,00000. As discussed under the head AI1
(Sl.No.1 of the assets), PW5 has assessed the cost of
the building on the basis of the Notification of the
Department Registration and Stamps, but not on the
basis of Notification of Karnataka PWD. PW5 has
given a report which is at Ex.P108(g). It was the
suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused
that he had to assess the cost of the construction on
the basis of the Notification of the PWD. For this
60 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
suggestion, DW5 has stated that there was no such
Notification. It is the argument of the learned counsel
for the accused that though PW5 has denied his
suggestion, cost of the building had to be assessed as
per the notification of PWD. No doubt, the notification
of Karnataka Stamps and Registration is only for the
purpose of registration of document, but not to
assess the cost of the buildings. The Karnataka
Public Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule
of Rates for Buildings comprising of the
Specifications, Rate Analysis & Technical details for
the State Engineers time to time in the form of G.O.
for valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that PW5 should have assessed the building on the
basis of the specification given in the notification of
the concerned year of the Karnataka Public Works
Department. PW5 has also stated that he has not
enquired the owner of the building and he has
assessed the cost of the building on the basis of the
materials seen by him, but he did not find out what
61 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
are all other materials used for construction. When
PW5 has not find out the materials and their quality
which are used for construction of the building, he
could not properly assess the cost of the building.
Further, I am of the opinion that unless an expert dig
the ground to know what materials are used to put
up basement and unless he dig the wall to know
what type of cement used for construction of walls
and which quality materials are used for
construction, one cannot assess the cost of the
building. Further, PW5 has not deposed whether he
is an expert to find what type of wood used for doors,
cupboards and windows. In his report, PW5 has
mentioned that on the basis of Notification of the
Department of Stamps and Registration he has
assessed the building. But, Notification of the
Department of Stamps and Registration, would be
used for the purpose of registration of documents of
the movable and immovable properties. In that event,
if the report of PW5 is accepted, definitely it would
62 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
cause injustice to the accused. It is true that in his
crossexamination, DW6 has stated that he has no
bills for having purchased building materials,
payment made for laborers and he has not written it
down. DW6 has deposed that the houses were
constructed during the years 200506. When the
houses were built during the years 200506, it
cannot be expected from him to produce the bills
after a long time i.e., after 6 years from the date of
construction.
(c). It is pertinent to note that admittedly,
husband of the accused has got constructed the
building. In the absence of acceptable evidence on
the side of the prosecution to substantiate cost of
construction, it is considered view of this court that
husband of the accused is the proper person to say
about cost of construction. When the prosecution has
failed to substantiate its contention to the
satisfaction of the court that cost of construction is
Rs.6,99,60500, admitted cost of construction has to
63 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
be accepted. In his chief examination, DW6 has
specifically deposed that in the said site he put up
sheet roofed houses spending Rs.3,00,00000 and
they were rented out. In his crossexamination,
except suggestion that he spent Rs.6,99,60500 for
construction of houses, nothing is elicited to
disbelieve chief examination of DW6. Therefore, I
have accepted the case of the accused that he had
spent Rs.3,00,00000 for construction of sheet roofed
houses. Thus, the total value of Asset No.10 i.e., AI
10 is considered as Rs.33,00,00000 (purchase price
of site: Rs.30,00,00000 + cost of construction:
Rs.3,00,00000).
(XI). AI11: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p3 of
Kannamangala village:
(a). The investigating officer by considering the
sale deed dated 17.05.2006 has taken this property
as an asset of the accused and its purchase value at
Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the prosecution has
also got marked the copy of the sale deed dated
64 Spl. C.C. No.376/201515.07.2006 as Ex.P68. Admittedly, husband of the
accused had purchased this property for
Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted this
fact and submitted that he has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her
asset. Therefore, without further discussion, I have
accepted this property as an asset of the accused
and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XII). AI12: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p5 of
Kannamangala village:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated
17.05.2006 the investigating officer has taken this
property as an asset of the accused and its purchase
value at Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked the copy of the sale
deed dated 15.07.2006 as Ex.P69. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that she has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her
65 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
asset. Therefore, without further discussion, I have
accepted this property as an asset of the accused
and its purchase value at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XIII). AI13: 1 acre of land in Sy.No.50/p4 of
Kannamangala village:
(a). By considering the sale deed dated
07.08.2006, the investigating officer has taken this
property as an asset of the accused and its purchase
value at Rs.1,50,00000. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked the copy of the sale
deed dated 07.08.2006 as Ex.P70. Admittedly,
husband of the accused had purchased this property
for Rs.1,50,00000 and the accused has admitted
this fact and submitted that she has no objection to
consider purchase value of this property as her asset.
Therefore, without further discussion, I have accept
this as an asset of the accused and its purchase
value at Rs.1,50,00000.
(XIV). AI14 to AI22: 3 acres 17 guntas of land in
Sy.No.67, 4 acres of land in Sy.No.464/1, 0.75 cents
66 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of land in Sy.No.78/A1B1, 2 acres 59 guntas of land
in Sy.No.502/A, 0.60 cents of land in Sy.No.116/B,
1.5 acres of land in Sy.No.88, 2.50 acres of land in
Sy.No.116, land in Sy.No.228/1, land in Sy.No.169:
(a). The investigating officer has considered these
properties as assets of accused on the basis of the
sale deeds which are in the name of husband of the
accused. Admittedly, husband of the accused has
purchased land in Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura
Village (AI14) on 05.10.2007, he has purchased land
in Sy.No.464/1 of Ikkadahalli Village ( AI15) on
09.09.2008, he has purchased land in
Sy.No.78/A1B1 of Ikkadahalli Village ( AI16) on
11.07.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.502/A
of Ikkadahalli Village (AI17) on 28.08.2008, he has
purchased land in Sy.No.116/B of Ikkadahalli Village
(AI18) on 09.09.2008, he has purchased land in
Sy.No.88 of Ikkadahalli Village (AI19) on
28.08.2008, he has purchased land in Sy.No.116 of
Ikkadahalli Village (AI20) on 28.08.2008, he has
purchased Land in Sy.No.228/1 of Ikkadahalli
67 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Village( AI21) on 28.08.2008 and he has purchased
land in Sy.No.169 of Kannamangala Village ( AI22)
on 05.01.2009. In this regard, the prosecution has
got marked the documents as Ex.P61 and Ex.P35.
I have perused these documents. As aforesaid, the
accused was not a public servant during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. A perusal of the sale
deeds which are marked at Ex.P35 and Ex.P61
makes it clear that these properties were purchased
on 05.01.2009, 09.09.2008, 11.07.2008,
28.08.2008, 09.09.2008 and on 28.08.2008 ie.,
during the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010.
Therefore, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, I have not
considered these properties as assets of the accused.
(XV). AI23: Site No.14 at ward No.38 of
Nagarabhavi Main Road:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
purchased this site on 15.12.2003 for a sum of
Rs.4,72,00000. The prosecution has also got
68 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
marked the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 as Ex.P41.
The accused has admitted purchase of this property
for a sum of Rs.4,72,00000 during the check period.
Therefore, without further discussion I have
considered this property as an asset of the accused
and its purchase value at Rs.4,72,00000.
(XVI). AI24: Building constructed in site No.8,
Khata No.47 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). As per the contents of final report, on
28.01.2002 grand mother of husband of the accused
has gifted this property under a gift deed, husband of
the accused has put up construction in this site
spending a sum of Rs.15,27,36400, in this regard he
has got assessed the cost of the construction through
the Executive Engineer, hence he has considered this
building as an asset of the accused. The accused has
not disputed that grand mother of her husband has
gifted the property to her husband and also
construction of the building on that site. But the
accused has disputed the cost of the construction as
69 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
mentioned in the Final Report. The learned public
prosecutor has argued that in order to prove the cost
of the construction, the prosecution has got
examined PW5, who assessed the cost of the
construction by visiting the property and he has also
got marked his Report as Ex.P108(c). On the other
hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued
that as per the evidence of PW5, he has not enquired
owner of the building, not verified the materials used
for the construction and his Report is not
accompanied with the Notification indicating the rate
adopted by him. He further argued that husband of
the accused has been examined as DW6, who
deposed that he has spent about Rs.8,00,00000 to
Rs.9,00,00000 for the construction of the building,
hence cost of the construction be considered as
Rs.9,00,00000.
(b). As per the case of prosecution, cost of
construction is Rs.15,27,36400, but the accused
has contended that it is about Rs.8,00,00000 to
70 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.9,00,00000. As discussed under AI1 (Sl.No.1 of
the Assets), PW5 has assessed the cost of the
building on the basis of the Notification of the
Department of Registration and Stamps, but not on
the basis of Notification of Karnataka Public Works
Department. PW5 has given a report, which is at
Ex.P108(c). It was the suggestion of the learned
counsel for the accused that he has to assess the
cost of the construction on the basis of the
Notification of the PWD. For the suggestion of the
learned counsel for the accused that he had to assess
the cost on the basis of notification of PWD, witness
has stated that there was no such Notification. It is
the argument of the learned counsel for the accused
that though PW5 has denied his suggestion, cost of
the building has to be assessed as per the
notification of PWD. No doubt, the notification of
Karnataka Registration and Stamps is only for the
purpose of registration of properties, but not to
assess the cost of the buildings. Karnataka Public
71 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Works Department issues Karnataka Schedule of
rates for Buildings comprising of the Specifications,
Rate Analysis & Technical details for the State
Engineers time to time in the form of G.O. for
valuation purposes. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that PW5 should have assessed the building on the
basis of the specification given in the notification of
the concerned year of the Karnataka Public Works
Department.
(c). PW5 has also stated that he has not enquired
owner of the building and he has assessed the cost of
the building on the basis of the materials seen by
him and he did not find out what are all other
materials used for construction. In view of this
evidence of PW5, I am of the opinion that unless an
expert dig the ground to know what materials are
used to put up basement and unless he dig the wall
to know what type of cement used for construction of
walls and which quality materials are used for
construction of pillar and building, one cannot assess
72 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
real cost of the building. Further, PW5 has not
deposed whether he is an expert to know what type of
wood used for doors, cupboards and windows. In his
report, PW5 has mentioned that on the basis of the
Notification of the Department of Registration and
Stamps, he has assessed the building, which is to be
used for the purpose of registration of immovable
properties. In that event, if the report of PW5 is
accepted, definitely it would cause injustice to the
accused. It is true that in his cross examination DW
6 has stated that he has no bills for having
purchased building materials, payment made for
laborers and he has not written it down. DW6 has
deposed that the houses were constructed in the year
200506. If the houses were constructed long before
the registration of the case, it cannot be expected
from him to keep the bills for a long 6 years from the
date of construction. Ex.P108(c) shows that PW5
has assessed cost of the construction on the basis of
measurement of plinth area of the building, without
73 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
checking the quality of the materials used for the
construction. In his Report PW5 has stated that if
the building is made of RCC, Mosaic floor and teak
wood, cost of the ground floor per sq.ft. is Rs.46000,
cost of first and second floor per sq.ft. is Rs.41000.
But PW5 has not deposed whether flooring of the
house of the accused is made of mosaic tiles and he
used teak wood for wardrobe, doors and windows.
Undisputed fact is that, husband of the accused has
got constructed the building, therefore in the absence
of acceptable evidence on the side of the prosecution,
it is considered view of this court that husband of the
accused (DW6) is the proper person to say about
cost of construction. When the prosecution has failed
to substantiate its contention to the satisfaction of
the court that cost of construction is Rs.15,27,364
00, cost of construction mentioned by DW6 who has
got constructed the building has to be accepted. In
his chief examination, DW6 has specifically deposed
that in the said site he put up sheet roofed houses
74 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
spending Rs.9,00,00000 and they were rented out.
In his crossexamination, except suggestion that he
spent Rs.15,27,36400 for construction of houses,
nothing is elicited to disbelieve chief examination of
DW6. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the
accused that he had spent Rs.9,00,00000 for
construction of residential houses in the site No.8.
Thus, total value of the Asset No.24 ie., AI24 is
considered as Rs.9,00,00000.
(XVII). AI25: Site bearing khatha No.2875 and
assessment No.47 of Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the
accused has purchased this property on 05.02.2004
for a sum of Rs.1,98,00000, hence the investigating
officer has considered this property as an asset of the
accused. Accused has not disputed this fact and
admitted that her husband has purchased this
property on 05.02.2004 for consideration of
Rs.1,98,00000. A perusal of certified copy of the sale
deed dated 04.02.2004 which is at Ex.P118 says
75 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
that husband of the accused has purchased this
property on 04.02.2004 for Rs.1,98,00000, which
has not been disputed by the accused. Hence, this
property is considered as an asset of the accused
and its purchase value at Rs.1,98,00000.
(XVIII). AI26: Site No.48 in Sy.No.3 of Malagala
Village:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, husband of
the accused has purchased this property under a
sale deed dated 05.05.2007 for a sum of
Rs.3,36,00000. In this regard, the prosecution has
got marked copy of the sale deed as per Ex.P97,
which shows that on 21.04.2007, husband of the
accused has purchased this site for Rs.3,36,00000.
The accused has not disputed purchase of the site
on 21.04.2007 for Rs.3,36,00000. But as aforesaid,
accused was not a public servant between the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, therefore as per the order
of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, I decline to
consider this property as an asset of the accused.
76 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XIX). AI27: One acre of land in Sy.No.169 of
Kannamangala Village:
(a). As per the Final Report and evidence of PW9,
husband of the accused has purchased this property
on 15.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00000. In this
regard the prosecution has got marked the copy of
sale deed as per Ex.P94. The accused has admitted
that her husband has purchased this property on
15.07.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00000. Since, the
accused has admitted purchase of the property and
also its price, I have considered this property as an
asset of the accused and its purchase price at
Rs.1,50,00000.
(XX). AI28: House in assessment No.38/2 and
Khata No.1200 of Yeshwanthpura:
(a). As per the gift deed dated 02.03.2007 (Ex.P
104) and the Final Report, on 02.03.2007 father of
the accused has gifted this property in favour of the
accused. The accused has admitted the gift of this
property by her father. Since, this property is the
77 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
gifted property, the Investigating Officer has not
considered this property as an asset of the accused.
Therefore, I decline to consider this property as an
asset of the accused.
(XXI). AI29: Site No.7 of Khata No.47 of
Nagarabhavi Village:
(a). As per the gift deed dated 30.11.2010 (Ex.P
106) and Final Report, on 30.11.2010 grand mother
of the husband of the accused has gifted this
property in favour of husband of the accused. Since,
this property is the gifted property, the Investigating
Officer has not considered this property as an asset
of the accused. Therefore, I decline to consider this
property as an asset of the accused.
(XXII). AI30: Lands in Sy.Nos. 64/1, 64/2 and
64/3 of Raghunathapura Village:
(a). As per the Final Report and evidence of PW9,
husband of the accused has purchased these
properties on 09.02.2011 for total consideration of
Rs.7,20,00000. The accused has not disputed
78 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015purchase of these properties and also amount of
consideration. Ex.P107 which is an undisputed
document also shows that husband of the accused
had purchased these properties on 09.02.2011 for
Rs.7,20,00000. Hence, these properties have been
considered as assets of accused and their purchase
value at Rs.7,20,00000.
(XXIII). AI31 Lands in Sy.Nos. 10, 46/3, and
46/4 of Chikkadevarahalli Village:
(a). On the basis of sale deed dated 15.10.1998,
the investigating officer has considered this property
as an asset of the accused. As per the Final Report
and evidence of PW9, husband of the accused has
purchased these properties on 15.10.1998 for total
consideration of Rs.1,90,00000. The certified copy of
the sale deed dated 15.10.1998, which is marked at
Ex.P115 says that husband of the accused has
purchased these properties for total consideration of
Rs.1,90,00000. The accused has not disputed
purchase of these properties and also payment of
79 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015amount of consideration by her husband. Hence,
these properties are considered as assets of the
accused and their purchase value at Rs.1,90,000
00.
(XXIV). AI32 – Site No.8 of Assessment No.47 of
Nagarabhavi Village:
(a). As per the case of the prosecution, on
29.05.2010 grand mother of husband of the accused
has gifted this property in favour of husband of
accused, hence it is not considered as asset of the
accused. As per the contents of Ex.P130, on
29.05.2010 one Smt. Siddamma has gifted this
property in favour of husband of accused. Since the
property has been gifted in favour of husband of the
accused, I have not considered this property as an
asset of the accused.
(XXV). ABA1: Bank balance of Rs.57851 in the
account of the accused in Syndicate Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating
80 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Officer traced out some documents pertaining to
Syndicate Bank, the investigating officer has
obtained account statement of the accused, which
show that as on 08.12.2011 bank balance in the
account of the accused was Rs.57851. The accused
has not disputed this fact, after perusal of the
account statement i.e., Ex.P62, I have considered
Rs.57851 as an asset of the accused.
(XXVI). ABA2: Bank balance of Rs.19,50314 in
the account of the husband of accused in ICICI
Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating
Officer traced out some documents pertaining to
ICICI Bank, the investigating officer has obtained
account statement of the husband accused, which
shows that as on 29.11.2011 bank balance in the
account of husband of the accused was Rs.19,503
14. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence
81 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.19,50314 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXVII). ABA3: Bank balance of Rs.4,52600 in
the account of the husband of accused in Union
Bank of India:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of search in the house of
accused, the Investigating Officer traced out
documents pertaining to Union Bank of India, he has
obtained account statement of the husband accused,
which shows that as on 17.12.2011 bank balance in
the account of husband of the accused was Rs.4,526
00. The accused has not disputed this fact, hence
Rs.4,52600 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXVIII). ABA4: Bank balance of Rs.12,72345 in
the account of the husband of accused in Janatha
Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating
Officer traced out some documents pertaining to
82 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Janatha Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd., and he has
obtained account statement of the husband accused,
which shows that as on 12.12.2011 bank balance in
the account of husband of the accused was
Rs.12,72345. The accused has not disputed this
fact, hence Rs.12,72345 is considered as an asset
of the accused.
(XXIX). ABA5: Bank balance of Rs.2,01500 in
the account of the husband of accused in Canara
Bank:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating
Officer traced out documents pertaining to Canara
Bank, he has obtained account statement of the
husband accused which shows that as on
31.07.2011 the bank balance in the account of
husband of the accused was Rs.2,01500. The
accused has not disputed this fact, hence Rs.2,015
00 is considered as an asset of the accused.
83 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XXX). ABA6: Bank balance of Rs.2,44635 in the
account of the accused in Syndicate Bank,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of ride the Investigating
Officer traced out some documents pertaining to
Syndicate Bank, he has obtained account statement
of the accused, which shows that as on 30.09.2011
the bank balance in the account of the accused was
Rs.2,44635. The accused has not disputed this fact,
hence Rs.2,44635 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXXI). ABA7: Bank balance of Rs.8,21800 in
the account of the husband of accused in the
Rajajinagar Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). As per the evidence of PW9 and contents of
Final Report, at the time of search and ride in the
house of accused, the Investigating Officer traced out
some documents pertaining to Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank Ltd., he has obtained account
statement of husband of the accused, which shows
that as on 17.10.2011 the bank balance in the
84 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015account of husband of the accused was Rs.8,21800.
The accused has not disputed this fact, hence
Rs.8,21800 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXXII). ABA8 Bank balance of Rs.38,14,65300
in the account No.8401101027550 of the accused in
Canara Bank, BBMP Branch:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 14.12.2011
there was a balance amount of Rs.38,14,65300 in
the account of the accused in Canara Bank, BBMP
Branch, hence same is considered as an asset of the
accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued
that after sale of assets for Rs.70,00,00000, an
amount of Rs.38,00,00000 is in the account of the
accused and source of the said amount is sale of an
asset, therefore the Investigating officer has rightly
considered this bank balance as an asset of the
accused. He further argued that, all the balance
amount in the account cannot said to be lawful, the
accused has to say how that amount came to his
account, because all credits to the account cannot
85 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015said to be lawful. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the accused has argued that the accused
has sold the property No.78 of Nagarabhavi Village
for a sum of Rs.70,00,00000, out of this amount an
amount of Rs.2,00,00000 was given to the accused
in cash and Rs.38,00,00000 was paid through six
cheques and remaining amount has been credited to
the account of husband of the accused through
cheques. He further submitted that an amount of
Rs.70,00,00000 has been considered by the
Investigating Officer as income under the head of
income bearing Code No.ISA7, therefore the balance
amount in the account of the accused cannot be
treated as an asset.
(b). In view of rival arguments of both parties, I
have gone through the materials available on record.
The sale deed dated 25.01.2006, which is marked as
Ex.P40 and which has been produced by the
prosecution itself shows that site No.78 was
purchased by the accused for consideration of
86 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.30,00,00000. The prosecution has also produced
the sale deed dated 12.12.2011, which has been
marked as Ex.P37. This document says that the
accused has sold site No.78 for total consideration of
Rs.70,00,00000. Regarding purchase of the site
No.78 for Rs.30,00,00000 and sale of the site for
Rs.70,00,00000 is not in dispute. The contents of
Ex.P37 state that purchaser of the property had
issued a cheque bearing No.325816 for Rs.3,00,000
00, a cheque bearing No.72626 for Rs.3,00,00000, a
cheque bearing No.71028 for Rs.20,00,00000, a
cheque bearing No.72628 for Rs.3,00,00000, a
cheque bearing No.325817 for Rs.3,00,00000 and a
cheque bearing No.587597 for Rs.6,00,00000 in
favour of the accused. The sale deed also reveals that
Rs.2,00,00000 has been paid by the purchaser to
the accused in cash. Thus, out of total consideration
amount of Rs.70,00,00000, an amount of
Rs.38,00,00000 has been credited to the account of
accused through cheques. As this amount is the
87 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
consideration amount derived from the sale of an
asset, it becomes the income of the accused. The
learned public prosecutor has argued that the
property was in the name of the accused but part
payment of the consideration amount was given to
the husband of the accused, thus they have mutually
sold the property. There is no bar to credit the
amount of sale consideration in respect of sale of
property by the accused to the account of husband of
the husband. Therefore, the amount derived from
sale of an asset credited to the account of the
accused and her husband is an income of the
accused and it is lawful income. The learned public
prosecutor has further argued that the balance
amount in bank balance is an intangible asset and
same has not been invested therefore it has to be
considered as an asset of the accused. Tangible
assets are physical items with monetary value that
can be touched and seen like building, equipment
and inventory. On the other hand, intangible assets
88 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
lack physical substance but holds value such as
patents, trademarks and goodwill. Here the property
considered by the investigating officer is the bank
balance and source of that bank balance is sale
proceeds of the property of the accused. Further,
there is no dispute about purchase of this property
by husband of the accused in the year 2006 for a
sum of Rs.30,00,00000 and sale of it under a sale
deed dated 12.12.2011.
(c). Apart from that, under the heads of income
(Code No.ISC7), the Investigating Officer has
considered the sale proceeds of Rs.70,00,00000 as
an income of the accused. The sale proceeds cannot
be taken both under the head of income as well as
under the head of asset. Therefore, the amount
credited to the account of the accused out of the sale
proceeds i.e., Rs.38,00,00000 cannot be considered
under the head of an asset. As per Ex.P84 the
balance amount in the account of the accused as on
14.12.2011 was Rs.38,14,65300, if the sale proceeds
89 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of Rs.38,00,00000 is deducted, it comes to
Rs.14,65300. Therefore, only Rs.14,65300 is
considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXIII). ABA9: Bank Balance amount of
Rs.4,35000 in the account No.31665883104 which
belonged to son of the accused in State Bank of
India:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 11.12.2011,
there was a balance amount of Rs.4,35000 in a
bank account, which belonged to son of the accused
by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, hence same
investigating officer has considered this amount as
an asset of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked bank statement as
Ex.P44, which shows the bank balance. Further, the
accused has not disputed this asset hence,
Rs.4,35000 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXXIV). ABA10: Bank Balance amount of
Rs.2,90275 in the account No.3812 of the accused
in Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). On the basis of bank statement, the
investigating officer has considered Rs.2,90275 as
90 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015an asset of accused. As per the Final Report, as on
08.11.2011 there was a balance amount of Rs.2,902
75 in the account of the accused in Kaveri
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank. In this regard PW2 has
got marked bank statement as Ex.P98. Further, the
accused has not disputed this asset hence,
Rs.2,90275 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
(XXXV). ABA11: Bank Balance amount of
Rs.1,38700 in the account of son of the accused in
SBM:
(a). As per the Final Report, as on 17.12.2011,
there was a balance amount of Rs.1,38700 in the
account of son of the accused by name Sri.
Sharathkumar, hence same is considered as an
asset of the accused. In this regard the prosecution
has also got marked bank statement as Ex.P117.
Since, the accused has not disputed this asset,
Rs.1,38700 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
91 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XXXVI). AB1: Membership fee and share fee of
Rs.5,52500 in Kanaka Souharda Credit Cooperative
Society in the name of husband of accused:
(a). As per the case of the prosecution, husband
of the accused was having membership in Kanaka
Souharda Credit Cooperative Society, he has
purchased 50 shares for Rs.5,00000, he paid share
fee of Rs.50000 and admission fee of Rs.2500,
hence an amount of Rs.5,52500 is considered as an
asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed
this asset. But, on 12.04.2009, when he has got
membership and on 17.01.2009 when he has
purchased shares and paid share fee and admission
fee, accused was not a public servant (24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010). Hence, this asset has not been
considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXVII). AB2: Membership fee and share fee of
Rs.5,52500 in Kanaka Souharda Credit Cooperative
Society in the name of the accused:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the accused
was having membership in Kanaka Souharda Credit
92 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Cooperative Society, she was having 50 shares of
Rs.5,00000, she paid share fee of Rs.50000 and
admission fee of Rs.2500, hence an amount of
Rs.5,52500 is considered as an asset of the
accused. The accused has not disputed this asset.
But, as aforesaid, on 12.04.2009 when she had got
membership and on 17.01.2009 when she had
purchased shares and, paid share fee and admission
fee, she was not a public servant. Hence, this asset
has not been considered as an asset of the accused.
(XXXVIII). AB3: Shares of Rs.3,00000 in Janatha
Seva Cooperative Bank Ltd., in the name of husband
of the accused:
(a). A perusal of final report and the documents
on record, makes it clear that the accused has
informed the Investigating Officer through her
schedule at Annexure15A that her husband had
purchased 30 shares of Rs.3,00000, hence the
Investigating Officer has considered Rs.3,00000 as
an asset of the accused. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.3,00000 for purchase of
93 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
shares. After perusal of Ex.P103 and by considering
the admissions of accused, I have considered
Rs.3,00000 as an asset of the accused.
(XXXIX). AB4: Shares of Rs.8,00000 in GGSE
Financial Ltd.,:
(a). As the accused has informed the
Investigating Officer through a schedule at
Annexure15A that her husband had purchased
shares of Rs.8,00000 in GGSE Financial Ltd., the
Investigating Officer has considered Rs.8,00000 as
asset of the accused. The accused has not disputed
this fact, hence Rs.8,00000 is considered under an
asset of the accused.
(XL). AV1: Expenses of Rs.42,12800 made
towards Insurance, payment of Tax and maintenance
of a two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41
HM:5319:
(a). In the Final Report the Investigating Officer
has stated that at the time of search in the house of
the accused, he found a two wheeler vehicle, when he
obtained documents of that vehicle from ARTO, he
94 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
came to know that said vehicle was in the name of
son of the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, an
amount of Rs.87200 was paid towards insurance of
this vehicle, an amount of Rs.4,67600 was paid
towards Tax and spent sum of Rs.23,28000 for
maintenance of this vehicle and as the said vehicle
was purchased by the accused for her son, this
amount has been considered as an asset of the
accused. The accused has not disputed that said
vehicle belonged to her son and they have spent
Rs.42,12800 towards insurance policy, tax and
maintenance. But, as this amount is an expenditure,
the Investigating Officer should have considered it
under the head of Expenditure. Hence, I decline to
consider Rs.42,12800 as an asset of the accused
and it will be considered under the head of
expenditure.
(XLI). AJ: Golden articles found in the house of
the accused:
(a). The prosecution has contended that at the
time of search in the house of the accused, the
95 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Investigating Officer has found 759.50 grams of
golden ornaments, they were weighed and their price
was assessed by the goldsmith, the total value of the
759.5 grams of gold is assessed as per the price
existing on that day and it comes to Rs.17,45,700
00, therefore said golden articles have been
considered as assets of the accused. PW3 who is a
mahazar witness has deposed that when they have
searched the house of the accused they found 750
grams of golden ornaments and 3 Kgs of silver
articles, one Rakesh has weighed gold and silver
articles and assessed their value. PW2 is the
Investigating Officer, who has conducted search in
the house of the accused, but except marking of
mahazar, he has not stated anything about golden
ornaments said to be found in the house of the
accused and also weight of the golden articles. But
the accused has also not disputed the case of the
prosecution that during the search there were golden
ornaments weighing 759.5 grams in the house of the
96 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused. The defence of the accused is that out of
759.50 grams golden articles, 224 grams of golden
articles belonged to her sister and 118 grams of
golden articles were gifted to her and her husband by
her parents during marriage. It is to be noted that
once the prosecution has shown that the accused
has been in possession of 759.50 grams of gold, the
burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account
for the same by explaining that she had resources
with which she could have acquired those assets
which were not taken into account by the
prosecution. Further, it is settled principles of law
that mere acquisition of property does not
constitutes an offence under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act, but failure on the part
of the accused for satisfactorily account for makes
the possession offending. In a decision reported in
(1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199 (State of
Maharashtra v/s Wasudeo Ramachandra
Kaidalwar), which has been relied by the learned
97 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
counsel for the accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that:
‘….To substantiate the charge, the
prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 5(1)(e),
namely, (1) it must establish that the accused
is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of
the pecuniary resources or property which
were found in his possession, (3) it must be
proved as to what were his known sources of
income i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it
must prove, quite objectively, that such
resources or property found in possession of
the accused were disproportionate to his
known sources of income. Once these four
ingredients are established, the offence of
criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is
complete, unless the accused is able to account
for such resources or property. The burden then
shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account
for his possession of disproportionate assets.
The extent and nature of burden of proof
resting upon the public servant to be found in
possession of disproportionate assets under
Section 5(1)(e) cannot be higher than the test
laid by the court in ‘Thingan case’, i.e. to
establish his case by a preponderance of
probability….’
(b). The principles laid down in the above decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are applicable to the
98 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015facts of the present case hence, I have applied the
principles to the case on hand. Contention of the
accused is that some of the golden articles found in
her house were belonged to her sister by name Smt.
Manjula, as her husband has died and her two
children were aged about 14 and 10 years, she had
kept her golden ornaments in her house. Even in her
schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, the
accused has explained stating that few months
earlier her sister had kept her valuables in her house
and they were also been taken into consideration by
the Investigating Officer. In this regard, the accused
has also got examined her sister as DW3, who
deposed that during her marriage her parents have
given her 10 grams of ear rings, 15 grams of
necklace, 40 grams of bangles and her husband was
having 80 grams of golden chain and 44 grams of
golden bracelet, as her husband has died, she had
kept her golden articles in the house of the accused
for safety purpose. DW3 has also got marked her
99 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015affidavit as Ex.D4. As per the contents of this
affidavit, as her husband has died she kept her gold
and silver articles in the house of the accused for
safety purpose.
(c). Arguments of the learned public prosecutor is
that admittedly father of DW3 was poor, who was
doing coolie, therefore statement of the accused that
his father has gifted 224 grams of golden ornaments
to DW3 cannot be believed. He further argued that if
really DW3 had kept her golden ornaments in the
house of the accused, she should have approached
Lokayukta police immediately after the raid for
release of ornaments claiming that they belonged to
her. He has argued that the affidavit of DW3 has
been sworn by her after the raid hence, it cannot be
taken into consideration. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the accused has argued that giving
golden ornaments in marriage such as earrings,
Mangalya chain etc., is not unnatural. He further
argued that in her evidence DW3 has spoken about
100 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015swearing of affidavit and she has categorically stated
that total gold belongs to her which were kept in the
house of the accused were weighing 224 grams and
there is absolutely no cross examination disproving
her evidence.
(d). No doubt, as argued by the learned public
prosecutor, an affidavit has been sworn by DW3 on
10.09.2012 i.e., after the raid in the house of the
accused by Lokayukta Police. But even in her cross
examination, DW3 remain withstood her chief
examination stating that she kept her jewels in the
house of her sister as her children were little children
and her home is a single house in that area. In her
crossexamination, DW3 has admitted that
immediately after the raid she did not told the police
that she kept her golden articles in the house of her
sister. DW3 has also stated that she had no bills for
having purchased the golden ornaments. Only on the
ground that she did not approach the police
immediately after the raid, it cannot be concluded
101 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015that she has given false evidence before the Court
because, it cannot be expected from a lady to
approach the police immediately after raid. Further,
it cannot be expected from any person to keep all
bills of golden articles for a long time, because
generally golden articles would purchase over a
period of time and not at once. It is to be noted that
though the accused has stated before the
investigating officer that out of golden ornaments
found in the house of accused, 224 grams of golden
ornaments belonged to her sister, the investigating
officer has not enquired her. Except putting
suggestions to DW3, the learned public prosecutor
has failed to elicit any favourable answer to disbelieve
evidence of DW3. The prosecution has not disputed
death of husband of DW3. Apart from that DW6
and DW7 have also deposed that as husband of DW
3 is no more and her children were young, for safety
of her golden articles she kept them in their house.
Therefore, by accepting argument of learned counsel
102 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
for the accused, 224 grams of golden ornaments
which were kept in the house of the accused by DW3
has to be deducted from 759.50 grams of gold. If we
do so remaining weight of the golden ornaments
comes to 535.5 grams.
(e). Further arguments of the learned counsel for
the accused is that in her chief examination, DW7
has categorically deposed that during her marriage
she has received two golden bangles, one necklace, a
finger ring and a mangalya chain, similarly her
husband has also received one bracelet and a finger
ring, as gifts, in this regard the accused has
furnished weight of these ornaments in her schedule,
the total weight of these golden articles has been
indicated as 118 grams, therefore this weight of gold
has to be deducted from 535.5 grams of gold.
Learned public prosecutor has argued that accused
has not substantiated receipt of golden ornaments by
the accused and her husband during their marriage,
therefore contention of the accused cannot be taken
103 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
into consideration. DW6 and DW7 have deposed
about gift of golden ornaments by their parents
during their marriage. It is uncommon in Hindu
tradition to present golden ornaments to bride and
bride groom by their parents during marriages.
Admittedly, marriage of the accused was taken place
in the year 1991 and hence it cannot be expected
from the accused to prove the presentation of the
golden ornaments by examining the persons who
were present during her marriage. Further, cross
examination of DW6 and DW7 about presentation
of golden ornaments by their parents is only denial of
their chief examination. Therefore, I have accepted
the contention of the accused and deducted 118
grams of golden ornaments from 535.5 grams of gold
and after deduction, it comes to 417.5 grams.
Admittedly, goldsmith has weighed the golden
ornaments without separating beads, stone and
waxes which were used for making of jewels,
therefore I am of the opinion that 10% of the weight
104 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
has to be deducted. If 10% of the weight is deducted
then it comes to 375.75 grams.
(f). Admittedly, the accused has not produced
bills for having purchased the golden ornaments. It
cannot be assumed that accused has purchased
375.75 grams of various types of jewels at once and it
is common that golden ornaments would be
purchased over a period of time. Under the
circumstances the accused cannot be expected to
prove that she acquired the golden ornaments during
a particular period at a particular price. It is also an
admitted fact that the mahazar witnesses (Panch
witnesses) and goldsmith have fixed the price of the
gold which was existing on the date of mahazar. It is
also not the case of the prosecution that all golden
ornaments were purchased immediately before the
raid. The accused has also not contended that she
had purchased them before the check period or
between the period when she was not a public
servant i.e., from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. In Crl.A.
105 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
No.467/2020, judgment dated 14.07.2023, which
arose between Sri. E. Kenchegowda v/s State of
Karnataka, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 1999 Crl.L.J. 1026 (G.V.S. Lingam v/s
State of UP), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that: ‘…..In the absence of any evidence as to
the period during which the gold was acquired,
it appears more reasonable to presume that the
gold might have been acquired periodically every
now and then…’. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has taken the market value prevailing in the
relevant years by presuming that the gold might have
been acquired proportionally in every year through
out the check period. Therefore, in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka, I decided to take average
rate of gold prevailing during the check period.
Accordingly, I have taken average rate of gold from
106 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
starting year of the check period to closing year of
check period i.e., from 1996 to 2011. After
considering price of the gold per gram from 1996 to
2001, average price of one gram of gold from 1996 to
2011 comes to Rs.93300. As discussed above,
weight of the golden ornaments of the accused is
375.75 grams. Thus, the total value of golden
ornaments of 375.75 grams comes to Rs.3,50,57475
(375.75 x 933). Accordingly, I have taken 375.75 of
golden ornaments as an asset of the accused and its
value at Rs.3,50,57475.
(g). The learned public prosecutor has also
argued that as per Ex.P127 the accused had
borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 by pledging gold,
therefore said gold has to be considered as asset of
the accused. Admittedly, at the time of search in the
house of the accused, the Investigating Officer has
found 759.50 grams of golden ornaments, they were
weighed and their price was assessed by the
goldsmith. The raid was conducted on 16.03.2012
107 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
and found 759.50 grams of golden ornaments. As per
the contents of Ex.P127, 451.4 grams of golden
ornaments were pledged to Muthoot finance to
borrow loan on 18.02.2010 ie., before the date of
raid. But a careful perusal of Ex.P127 makes it clear
that husband of the accused had repaid entire loan
amount on 29.10.2011 i.e., before the date of raid.
When he has unpledged his golden ornaments by
repaying entire loan, naturally he brought back
golden ornaments which were pledged to his house
and after he brought back the pledged ornaments,
raid conducted. Therefore, question considering the
pledged gold as an asset of the accused does not
arise. I have taken 375.75 of golden ornaments as an
asset of the accused and its value at Rs.3,50,57475.
(XLII). ASA: Silver articles found in the house of
the accused:
(a). The Investigating Officer has reported in the
final report that at the time of search in the house of
the accused he found 3.198 kilo grams of silver
108 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
articles of value Rs.1,59,90000, same is considered
as an asset of the accused. Admittedly, the
Investigating Officer and Panch witnesses have
assessed one gram of silver at Rs.5000 and total
value of the silver articles at Rs.1,59,90000. The
accused has not disputed the case of the prosecution
that on the date of raid the accused was in
possession of 3.198 Kgs of silver articles. Further,
the accused has not disputed fixing of price of one
gram of silver at Rs.5000.
(b). It is not the contention of the accused that
silver articles were purchased before the check
period or after the check period or that they were
purchased when she was not a public servant. Her
only contention is that silver articles, which were
found in her house were gifted to her when she was a
Corporator and when she attended marriages. Even
in her chief examination, DW6 and DW7 have
deposed that silver articles were gifted to accused
when she was a Corporator. The learned counsel for
109 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the accused has argued that prosecution has not
disputed that the accused was a Corporator and it is
common that any Corporator will be gifted by articles
during occasions, therefore the silver article should
not be considered as an asset of the accused.
(c). Accused has also stated in her schedule,
which is submitted to the Investigating Officer that
silver articles were gifted articles. The accused has
not explained when and who have gifted the silver
articles, she has not examined any person to prove
that they are gifted articles. Mere statement in the
schedule or oral evidence is not sufficient, the
accused should have probabalise that somebody
have gifted the silver articles when she was a
Corporator. In this regard the learned public
prosecutor has prays this court to apply the
principles laid down in case of State of Karnataka
v/s J. Jayalalitha and others. I have gone through
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
applied the principles of the decision to the case on
110 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
hand in respect of considering ‘gift’ in Prevention of
Corruption Cases. In the present case, the accused
has not given any details of gifts, what are the gift
items and when they were given. The burden is on
the accused person to establish the same as it is
within her personal knowledge. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that accused has claimed
in her schedule 14A which is submitted to the
investigating officer that silver articles were received
by way of gift and this fact is admitted by PW9, she
has also informed the investigating officer regarding
the gift during the mahazar. Mere statement in the
schedule and information to the investigation is not
sufficient to accept her claim that the silver items
were gift items, she has to probabalize it to the
satisfaction of the court.
(d). Apart from that she has not specifically
stated when she has received the gift items. It is not
the case of the accused that silver articles were
received when she was not the public servant or
111 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
before the check period. If the gifts were received by
the accused when she was a public servant, she
should have informed the government through her
annual statement of assets and liabilities, but a
perusal of statements of assets and liabilities (Ex.P
75), makes it clear that she has not disclosed
acceptance of silver gift items. Therefore, I decline to
accept the contention of the accused that the silver
articles found in the house of the accused are gifted
articles. As aforesaid, the accused has not disputed
value of the silver articles. Therefore, I accept the
case of the prosecution that value of the silver
articles found in the house of the accused is
Rs.1,59,90000 and they have been considered as
an assets of the accused.
(XLIII). AHA: Household articles found in the
house of the accused:
(a). As per the Final Report, during search in the
house of the accused the Investigating Officer and
Panch witnesses have found household articles,
electric and electronic articles, clothes, furniture etc.,
112 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015worth about Rs.10,33,91300, therefore the
household articles have been considered as assets of
the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has
argued that regarding value of the household
articles, receipts pertaining to the articles may be
consider and the articles which have no receipts
could be assessed by the Court. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that some of the articles
were received by the accused by way of gift during
religious functions, felicitations, and other functions
as she was a Corporator, value of the articles were
over valued and inflated by the investigating officer.
He further argued that accused is the best person to
say about price of the household articles, as per the
say of the accused, after deducting the items which
were received as gift, exact value of the household
articles is Rs.4,11,80000 and same may be
considered as the value of the household articles.
(b). No doubt, in her schedule statement
submitted to the investigating officer, the accused
113 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
has stated that the household articles were gifted to
her during festival and felicitation. But nothing is on
record to show that some of the household articles
are gifted articles. But primarily the burden was on
the prosecution to prove that during search
household articles worth about Rs.10,33,91300
were found in the house of the accused. If the
prosecution has proved its contention, then only the
burden will be shifted to the accused to contradict
the same. In order to find out whether the
prosecution has proved its contention, I have gone
through the mahazar conducted in the house of the
accused, which is marked as Ex.P49. A perusal of
this document shows that about 228 items of
household articles, electric items and electronic
items, 19 items of golden articles and 13 types of
silver articles are mentioned. It is to be noted that
the accused has not disputed existence of the
household articles in her house, which are
mentioned in the mahazar. The prosecution has got
114 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
examined PW2, who conducted the mahazar and
also PW3 who is the independent mahazar witness.
But none of these witnesses have deposed about
household articles mentioned in Ex.P49 and they
have also failed to mention names of at least some of
the household articles. PW2, who has conducted
search in the house of the accused has not even
deposed about household articles and their value.
Evidence of PW3, who is an independent mahazar
witness is also silent about household articles. Apart
from that none of these witnesses have deposed how
the value of household articles was assessed. In his
crossexamination, PW2 has stated that he had not
brought an expert to assess value of the household
articles, electric and electronic items. PW9 has
deposed about value of household articles only on
the basis of Ex.P49, ie., the price mentioned in the
mahazar. But PW2 and PW3, who found the
household articles in the house of the accused have
not stated anything about household articles and
115 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
their value. Even if this Court consider the fact that
the accused has not disputed the existence of
household articles mentioned in Ex.P49, the
prosecution has not proved value of household
articles at least their approximate value. When the
accused is disputing the value of house hold articles,
the primary duty is on the prosecution to
substantiate it to the satisfaction of the Court. As
stated above, neither PW2 nor PW3 deposed how,
who and on what basis value of the household
articles was fixed. Therefore, having no other option
and also on consideration of the fact that the
accused is the proper person to say about value of
the household articles which are in her house, I have
accepted say of the accused and hold that value of
the household articles is Rs.4,11,80000.
Accordingly, I have accepted case of the prosecution
that the household articles found in the house of
accused as assets of the accused, but value of those
articles is taken at Rs.4,11,80000.
116 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XLIV). ALIC1: LIC Policy No.615420571:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.615420571, which
was taken in the name of the accused as an asset of
the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has obtained
LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
given by LIC office dated 19.04.2012. The accused
has not disputed that she has taken this LIC policy
and paid premium of Rs.80,00000. As per Ex.P80,
this policy commenced on 30.03.2007 and its
maturity date is 30.03.2027, but this policy has been
terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. As
discussed earlier, the accused was not a public
servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. The mode
of payment of premium was Rs.20,00000 per
annum. Since the accused was not a public servant
from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not
considered this LIC policy and the premium paid on
this policy as an asset of the accused.
117 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XLV). ALIC2: LIC Policy No.61540884:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.61540884, which
was taken in the name of son of the accused by
name Sri. Bharath Kumar as an asset of the
accused. PW2 has deposed that he has obtained LIC
policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
given by LIC dated 19.04.2012 as Ex.P80. [The
document pertaining to this policy is at page
No.1083 of file No.3(2)]. The accused has not
disputed that she has taken this LIC policy in the
name of her son and also payment of premium of
Rs.40,00000. As per the letter of LIC dated
19.04.2012, this policy has commenced on
30.03.2007 and its maturity date is 30.03.2027.
This document also reveals that this policy has been
terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. The mode
of payment of premium was Rs.10,00000 per
annum. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a
118 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010.
Since the accused was not a public servant during
the period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not
considered this LIC policy as an asset of the accused.
(XLVI). ALIC3: LIC Policy No.615420723:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.615420723, which
was taken in the name of the son of the accused by
name Sri. Sharath Kumar as an asset of the accused.
PW2 has deposed that he has obtained LIC policies
of the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC
dated 19.04.2012 as Ex.P80 at page No.1084 of file
No.3(2). The accused has admitted that she has
taken this LIC policy in the name of her son and also
payment of premium of Rs.40,00000. As per the
letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on
30.03.2007 and its maturity date is 30.03.2027.
This document also reveals that this policy has been
terminated by the accused on 19.03.2011. The mode
119 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of payment of premium was Rs.10,00000 per
annum. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a
public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Since
the accused was not a public servant during the
period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have not
considered this LIC policy as an asset of the accused.
(XLVII). ALIC4: LIC Policy No.10171647:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.10171647, which
was taken in the name of the husband of the
accused by name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the
accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC
policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
given by LIC as per Ex.P74 at page No.1085 of file
No.3(2). The accused has not disputed taking of this
LIC policy and payment of premium of Rs.2,19,220
00 up to 17.12.2011. As per the letter of LIC, this
policy has commenced on 02.03.2006 and its
maturity date was 02.03.2019. The mode of payment
120 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of premium was yearly payment. The payment of
total premium made up to 17.12.2011 is
Rs.2,19,22000. As discussed earlier, the accused
was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded.
Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.2,19,22000
has to be divided by six as the accused had paid
premium for six years. If we do so, the premium per
annum comes to Rs.36,53700. After excluding the
period in which the accused was not a public servant
i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two
years has to be taken into consideration.
Accordingly, the premium amount paid by the
accused for two years is Rs.73,07400 and same is
considered as an asset of the accused under ALIC4.
(XLVIII). ALIC5: LIC Policy No.10167414:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium amount paid on LIC policy No.10167414,
which was taken in the name of the husband of the
121 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused by name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the
accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC
policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
given by LIC as per Ex.P74, which is at page
No.1085 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed
taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of
Rs.2,17,53000 up to 17.12.2011. As per the letter of
LIC office, this policy has commenced on 18.02.2006
and its maturity date was 18.02.2019. The mode of
payment of premium was yearly payment. The
payment of total premium made up to 17.12.2011 is
Rs.2,17,53000. As discussed earlier the accused
was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded.
Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.2,17,53000
has to be divided by six as the accused had paid
premium for six years. If we do so the premium per
annum comes to Rs.36,25500. After excluding the
122 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
period in which the accused was not a public servant
i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two
years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore,
the premium paid by the accused for two years is
Rs.72,51000 and same is considered as an asset of
the accused under the asset code ALIC5.
(XLIX). ALIC6: LIC Policy No.363585992:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the accused
has taken LIC policy No.363585992 in her name and
paid premium of Rs.1,60,64400, hence same is
considered as an asset of the accused. PW2 has
deposed that he has collected details of LIC policies of
the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC
as per Ex.P85 at page No.1086 of file No.3(2). The
accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy
and payment of premium of Rs.1,60,64400. As per
the letter of LIC office, this policy has commenced on
18.03.2006 and its maturity date is 18.03.2026. The
mode of payment of premium was yearly payment.
123 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
The total premium amount paid for six years is
Rs.1,60,64400. As discussed earlier, the accused
was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded.
Therefore, total premium amount of Rs.1,60,64400
has to be divided by six as the accused had paid
premium for six years. If we do so, the premium
amount per annum comes to Rs.26,77400. After
excluding the period in which the accused was not a
public servant i.e., four years, the premium amount
paid for two years has to be taken into consideration.
Therefore, the premium paid by the accused for two
years is Rs.53,54800, and same is considered as an
asset of the accused under the head ALIC6.
(L). ALIC7: LIC Policy No.363586361:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.363586361, which
was taken in the name of son of the accused by
name Sri. Bharath Kumar as an asset of the
124 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected LIC
policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
given by LIC as per Ex.P85, which is at page
No.1093 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed
taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of
Rs.1,09,96200. As per the letter of LIC, this policy
has commenced on 15.03.2006 and its maturity date
was 15.03.2025. The mode of payment of premium
was yearly payment. The total premium paid for 6
years is Rs.1,09,96200. As discussed earlier, the
accused was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, hence the premium paid in the year
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. The
total premium amount of Rs.1,09,96200 has to be
divided by six as the accused had paid premium for
six years. If we do so, the premium per annum
comes to Rs.18,22700. After excluding the period in
which the accused was not a public servant i.e., four
years, the premium amount paid for two years has to
125 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
be taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium
paid by the accused for two years is Rs.36,65400
and same is considered as an asset of the accused
under the head ALIC7.
(LI). ALIC8: LIC Policy No.363586360:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.363586360, which
was taken in the name of husband of the accused by
name H. Ravi Kumar as an asset of the accused. PW
2 has deposed that he has collected LIC policies of
the accused from the LIC office. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked a letter given by LIC
as per Ex.P85 at page No.1104 of file No.3(2). The
accused has not disputed taking of this LIC policy
and payment of premium of Rs.1,66,60800. As per
the letter of LIC, this policy has commenced on
18.03.2006 and its maturity date is 18.03.2027. The
mode of payment of premium was yearly payment.
The total premium paid for 6 years is Rs.1,66,608
00. As discussed earlier, the accused was not a
126 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
hence the premium paid in the year 2007, 2008,
2009 and 2010 have to be excluded. Therefore, total
premium amount of Rs.1,66,60800 has to be
divided by six as the accused had paid premium for
six years. If we do so the premium per annum comes
to Rs.27,70800. After excluding the period in which
the accused was not a public servant i.e., four years,
the premium amount paid for two years has to be
taken into consideration. Therefore, the premium
paid by the accused for two years is Rs.55,41600,
and same is considered as an asset of the accused
under the head ALIC8.
(LII). ALIC9: LIC Policy No.363586020:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
premium paid on LIC policy No.363586020, which
was taken in the name of the accused as an asset of
the accused. PW2 has deposed that he has collected
LIC policies of the accused from the LIC office. In this
regard the prosecution has also got marked a letter
127 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
given by LIC as per Ex.P85 which is at page
No.1110 of file No.3(2). The accused has not disputed
taking of this LIC policy and payment of premium of
Rs.1,09,96200. As per the letter of LIC, this policy
has commenced on 18.03.2006 and its maturity date
was 18.03.2025. The mode of payment of premium
was yearly payment. The total premium amount paid
for 6 years is Rs.1,09,96200. As discussed earlier
the accused was not a public servant from
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, hence the premium paid
in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be
excluded. The total premium amount of Rs.1,09,962
00 has to be divided by six as the accused had paid
premium for six years. If we do so the premium per
annum comes to Rs.18,32700. After excluding the
period in which the accused was not a public servant
i.e., four years, the premium amount paid for two
years has to be taken into consideration. Therefore,
the premium paid by the accused for two years is
128 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.36,65400, and same is considered as an asset of
the accused under the head ALIC9.
(LIII). ADE 1 to ADE 5: Deposited amount towards
electricity connections:
(a). As per the final report, the investigating
officer has consider an amount of Rs.201000
deposited to BESCOM to take electricity connections
to house No.3 of Nagarabhavi, an amount of
Rs.12,80000 deposited to BESCOM to take
electricity connections to house No.3 of Nagarabhavi,
an amount of Rs.34,44000 deposited to BESCOM to
take electricity connections to house No.47 of
Nagarabhavi under various RR numbers, an amount
of Rs.1,15,07000 deposited to BESCOM to take
electricity connections to house No.8 of Nagarabhavi
under various RR numbers, an amount of Rs.1,710
00 deposited to BESCOM to take electricity
connections to house No.78 of Nagarabhavi under
various RR numbers, as assets of the accused. In
this regard the prosecution has got marked certified
129 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
copies of documents and letters issued by BESCOM
as Ex.P99. On the other hand, the accused has not
disputed electricity connection taken and she has
also admitted the amount deposited to BESCOM. As
per the final report and the documents collected by
the prosecution, the total amount deposited by the
accused to take electricity connections under various
RR numbers is Rs.1,66,03000. Therefore, this
amount is considered as an asset of the accused.
(LIV). ADT1: An amount of Rs.3,75000 deposited
to take telephone connection:
(a). The investigating officer has considered an
amount of Rs.3,75000, which was deposited to
BSNL to take telephone connection to the house of
the accused as an asset of accused. The accused has
admitted that she had taken telephone connection
and deposited an amount of Rs.3,75000. In view of
the admission of the accused, an amount of
Rs.3,75000 is considered as an asset of the
accused.
130 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LV). AWC1 and AWC2: Deposited amount of
Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,34000 to BWSSB to take
water connection to the houses of accused:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
deposited amount of Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,340
00 to BWSSB to take water connection to the houses
of accused as an assets of the accused. The accused
has not disputed that she has taken water
connection from BWSSB by depositing an amount of
Rs.1,14,37000 and Rs.2,34000. In this regard PW
9 has also got marked the document as Ex.P105
and Ex.P137. By considering contents of these two
documents and in view of the admission of the
accused, an amount of Rs.1,16,71000 is
considered as an asset of the accused.
(LVI). AC1 and AC2: Membership fee of
Rs.3,81600 in Gormeth Club and Rs.10,65500 in
Satellite Club:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered the
membership fee and admission fee paid to get
membership in Gormeth Club and Satellite Club as
131 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
assets of the accused. As per the final report, at the
time of search in the house of accused, documents
regarding Gormeth Club were found and those
documents state that husband of the accused has
taken membership in Gormeth Club, in this regard a
letter was written to Gormeth Club seeking details of
membership of husband of the accused but no
details were received, hence by considering the
receipt traced out in the house of the accused during
search, an amount of Rs.3,86000 is considered as
an asset of the accused under AC1.
(b). The investigating officer further contended
that in her schedule the accused has stated that her
husband has taken membership in Satellite Club, in
this regard details were collected from the Club, on
the basis of those documents an amount of
Rs.10,65500 is considered as an asset of the
accused under AC2.
(c). The accused has not disputed the contention
of the prosecution that her husband has taken
132 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
membership in the above mentioned clubs by paying
above mentioned amount. But, the learned counsel
for the accused has argued that these expenses are
covered under per capita monthly expenditure, in
that event if the amount of membership is
considered under the head of asset, it amounts to
duplication, therefore these amount shall not be
considered as an asset of the accused. The
documents which are marked as Ex.P119 and Ex.P
120 proved that husband of the accused has taken
membership in Goldfinch Hotels Pvt Ltd., by paying
Rs.3,86000 and membership in Satellite Club by
paying Rs.10,65500. But a perusal of Ex.P129
makes it clear that the Deputy Director of Statistics,
Karnataka Lokayukta, has included the club fees in
invisible/ nonvariable expenditure of the family. If it
is so, if the deposited amount and other expenses
made towards membership of the clubs are
considered as assets of the accused it amounts to
duplication. Since Deputy Director of Statistics,
133 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Karnataka Lokayukta has already considered the
membership of the clubs under the head invisible /
nonvariable expenditure, I decline to consider these
amount as an expenditure of the accused.
(LVII). AGC1: Rs.80000 paid towards deposit to
take gas connection under consumer No.620503:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
deposited an amount of Rs.80000 to take gas
connection. As per Ex.P123 the accused has
deposited an amount of Rs.80000 to take gas
connection under consumer No.620503. The
accused has not disputed the contention of the
prosecution and contents of Ex.P123. Therefore,
without further discussion I have considered an
amount of Rs.80000 as an asset of the accused.
(LVIII). AGC2: Rs.1,90000 paid towards deposit
to take gas connection under consumer No.611571:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
deposited an amount of Rs.1,90000 to take gas
connection to take gas connection under consumer
134 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015No.611571. This fact has been proved by the
document which is marked as Ex.P124. The
accused has not disputed the contention of the
prosecution and also the contents of Ex.P124.
Therefore, without further discussion, I have
accepted the amount of Rs.1,90000 as an asset of
the accused.
(LIX). ACM1: Deposit amount of Rs.2,40000 to
take mobile connection bearing No.9880427055:
(a). The prosecution has contended that the
accused has deposited Rs.2,40000 to take mobile
connection, therefore the investigating officer has
considered it as an asset of the accused. The accused
has not disputed that she has deposited an amount
of Rs.2,40000 to take mobile connection. A perusal
of Ex.P63 has also makes it clear that the accused
has made local deposit an amount of Rs.40000 on
07.12.2004 and Rs.2,00000 on 11.01.2005 to take
post paid mobile connection. In view of admission of
135 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015the accused and contents of Ex.P63, I have accepted
Rs.2,40000 as an asset of the accused.
25. Thus, after considering documentary and oral
evidence and also submissions of arguments of both
sides, the assets and their value as per investigating
officer, according to the accused and also as per the
findings of the Court are as follows:
Assets and their Assets and their
Assets and their
Sl. Property Description value as per value as per
value according to
No. Code No. of Assets investigating findings of the
the accused.
Officer Court
Value of the
site and
Construction
Rs.3,60,00000 +
1 A11 cost on Site Rs.3,60,00000 + Rs.18,60,00000
Rs.15,00,00000
No.63 & 64 Rs.22,33,93000
of (2 & 3) of
Nagarabhavi
Value of the
3 acres of
land in
Sy.No.16,
present
2 A12 Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000 Rs.2,40,00000
No.16/p7 of
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of Site
No.2/83/2 of
3 A13 Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000 Rs.3,30,00000
Nagarabhavi
Village
Value of the
site and
Construction
4 A14 Rs.1,32,00000 + Rs.1,32,00000 +
cost on Site Rs.12,82,00000
Rs.22,80,4900 Rs.11,50,00000
No.47 of
Malagala
Value of Site
No.2 & 3 of
5 A15 Nagarabhavi Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000 Rs.8,21,00000
Village,
Mudalapalya
6 A16 Value of 2 Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000 Rs.2,82,50000
136 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
acre 33
guntas at
Sy.No.16,
present
No.16/p7 of
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 3
acre at
Sy.No.16,
present
7 A17 No.16/p7 of Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 3
acre at
Sy.No.16,
present
8 A18 No.16/p7 of Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000 Rs.3,00,00000.
Menasi
Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of Site
No.1, 4th 'B'
Main Road,
9 A19 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.1,00,00000
Byraveshwar
a Nagar,
Nagarabhavi
Value of site
and
Construction Rs.30,00,00000+ Rs.30,00,00000+
10 A110 Rs.33,00,00000
cost on Site Rs.6,99,60500 Rs.3,00,00000
No.78 of
Nagarabhavi
Value of 1
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p3,
11 A111 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Kannamanga
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of 1
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p5,
12 A112 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
Kannamanga
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
13 A113 Value of 1 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
acre of land
in
Sy.No.50/p4,
Kannamanga
la Village,
137 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Doddaballap
ura
Purchase
price of
14 A114 Sy.No.67, Rs.10,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Doddaballap
ura
Purchase
price of
15 A115 Rs.1,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.464/1
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
16 A116 Sy.No.78/A1 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
B1 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
17 A117 Sy.No.78/A1 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00
B1 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
18 A118 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.116/B
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
19 A119 Rs.25,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.88 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
20 A120 Rs.62,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.116 of
Kollegala
Purchase
price of
21 A121 Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.228/1
of Kollegala
Purchase
price of
22 A122 Rs.25,00,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Sy.No.50/p2
of Kollegala
Value of site
No.14, Ward
23 A123 No.38, Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000 Rs.4,72,00000
Nagarabhavi
Main Road
Construction
cost on Site
24 A124 Rs.15,27,36400 Rs.9,00,00000 Rs.9,00,00000
No.8 of
Nagarabhavi
Value of
property
bearing
Assessment
25 A125 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000 Rs.1,98,00000
No.47, Katha
No.2875 of
Nagarabhavi
Village
26 A126 Purchase Rs.3,36,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
138 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
price of Site
No.48 of
Malagala
Value of
Sy.No.169 of
Kannamanga
27 A127 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000 Rs.1,50,00000
la Village,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of
property
bearing
House List
28 A128 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
No.5, Katha
No.1200 of
Mallathalli
Village
Value of Site
No.7,
29 A129 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi
Village
Value of
Sy.No.64/1,
64/2 & 64/3
of
30 A130 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000 Rs.7,20,00000
Ranganathap
ura,
Doddaballap
ura
Value of
Sy.No.10,
46/3 & 46/4
31 A131 of Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000 Rs.1,90,00000
Chikkadevara
halli Village,
Kanakapura
Value of Site
No.8,
32 A132 Rs.00 Rs.00 Rs.00
Nagarabhavi
Village
Balance
amount in
A/c.
33 ABA1 No.42420100 Rs.57800 Rs.57800 Rs.57800
90711 of
Syndicate
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
34 ABA2 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300 Rs.19,50300
No.15901520
429 of ICICI
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
35 ABA3 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600 Rs.4,52600
No.56340201
0000577 of
Union Bank
36 ABA4 Balance Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300 Rs.12,72300
139 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
amount in
A/c.
No.014995 of
Janatha Co
operative
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
37 ABA5 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500 Rs.2,01500
No.31941401
001774 of
Canara Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
38 ABA6 No.04282010 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600 Rs.2,44600
104266 of
Syndicate
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c. No.635
39 ABA7 of Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800 Rs.8,21800
Rajajinagar
Cooperative
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
40 ABA8 Rs.38,14,65300 Rs.14,65300 Rs.14,65300
No.84011010
27550 of
Canara Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
41 ABA9 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000 Rs.4,35000
No.31665883
104 of State
Bank of India
Balance
amount in
A/c. No.3812
42 ABA10 of Cauvery Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200 Rs.2,90200
Kalpataru
Gramina
Bank
Balance
amount in
A/c.
43 ABA11 No.64074953 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700 Rs.1,38700
326 of State
Bank of
Mysore
Payment
made to
Souharda
44 AB1 Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 Rs.00
Credit Co
operative
Ltd.,
45 AB2 Payment Rs.5,52500 Rs.00 Rs.00
made to
140 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Souharda
Credit Co
operative
Ltd.,
Share
Certificate
No003275 of
46 AB3 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000 Rs.3,00000
Janatha Seva
Cooperative
Bank
Shares in
GGSE
47 AB4 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000 Rs.8,00000
Financial
Ltd.,
Expenses
towards
48 AV1 Honda Deo Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800 Rs.00
No.KA41
HM5319
Gold articles
found in the
49 AJ Rs.17,45,70000 Rs.3,50,34200 Rs.3,50,574000
house of the
accused
Silver articles
found in the
50 ASA Rs.1,59,90000 Rs.00 Rs.1,59,90000
house of the
accused
Household
articles
51 AHA found in the Rs.10,33,91300 Rs.4,11,80000 Rs.4,11,80000
house of the
accused
52 ALIC1 LIC premium Rs.80,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
53 ALIC2 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
54 ALIC3 LIC premium Rs.40,00000 Rs.00 Rs.00
55 ALIC4 LIC premium Rs.2,19,22000 Rs.73,07200 Rs.73,07400
56 ALIC5 LIC premium Rs.2,17,53000 Rs.72,51000 Rs.72,51000
57 ALIC6 LIC premium Rs.1,60,64400 Rs.53,54800 Rs.53,54800
58 ALIC7 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.36,65400 Rs.36,65400
59 ALIC8 LIC premium Rs.1,66,60800 Rs.55,77600 Rs.55,41600
60 ALIC9 LIC premium Rs.1,09,96200 Rs.36,65400 Rs.36,65400
BESCOM
deposit
towards
61 ADE1 Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000 Rs.2,01000
House No.3,
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
BESCOM
deposit
towards
62 ADE2 Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000 Rs.12,80000
House No.3,
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
63 ADE3 BESCOM Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000 Rs.34,44000
deposit
towards
House No.47,
141 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Malagala
BESCOM
deposit
towards
64 ADE4 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000 Rs.1,15,07000
House No.8,
Nagarabhavi
Main Road
BESCOM
deposit
65 ADE5 towards Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000 Rs.1,71000
House No.78,
Nagarabhavi
Telephone
deposit
towards
66 ADT1 Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000 Rs.3,75000
Phone
No.080
23217778
BWSSB
deposit
67 AWC1 towards Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000 Rs.1,14,37000
House No.47
of Malagala
BWSSB
deposit
towards
68 AWC2 House No.3 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000 Rs.2,34000
of
Byraveshwar
a Nagar
Membership
for Bangalore
69 AC1 Rs.3,86000 Rs.00 Rs.00
Gurmith
Club
Membership
Rs.00
70 AC2 for Sati Light Rs.10,65500 Rs.00
Club
Payment
71 AGC1 made Rs.80000 Rs.80000 Rs.80000
towards Gas
Payment
Rs.1,90000
72 AGC2 made Rs.1,90000 Rs.1,90000
towards Gas
Deposit
Rs.2,40000
73 ACM1 towards Rs.2,40000 Rs.2,40000
mobile
Total Rs.2,72,89,92000 Rs.1,34,03,87500 Rs.1,35,21,52100
B. EXPENDITURE
26. The Investigating Officer has considered 87
heads of expenditures, which are as follows:
142 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Code No. of Value of the Value of the
Sl. Description of the
the expenditure as per expenditure as per
No. expenditure
expenditure IO accused
Registration and
stamp duty towards
1 EASR1 Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000
Site No.63 & 64 of (2 &
3) of Nagarbhavi
Registration and
stamp duty towards 3
acres of land in
2 EASR2 Sy.No.16, present Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100
No.16/p7 of Menasi
Village,
Doddabhallapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
3 EASR3 Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500
Site No.2/83/2 of
Nagarbhavi Village
Registration and
4 EASR4 stamp duty towards Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000
Site No.47 of Malagala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
5 EASR5 Site No.2 & 3 of Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000
Nagarbhavi Village,
Mudalapalya
Registration and
stamp duty towards 2
acre 33 guntas at
6 EASR6 Sy.No.16, present Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500
No.16/p4 of Menasi
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards 3
acre at Sy.No.16,
7 EASR7 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500
present No.16/p4 of
Menasi Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and stamp
duty towards 3 acre at
Sy.No.16, present
8 EASR8 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500
No.16/p5 of Menasi
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and stamp
duty towards Site No.1,
9 EASR9 4th ‘B’ Main Road, Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000
Byraveshwara Nagar,
Nagarabhavi
Registration and
stamp duty towards
10 EASR10 Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000
Site No.78 of
Nagarabhavi
143 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Registration and
stamp duty towards 1
acre of land in
11 EASR11 Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500
Sy.No.50/p3,
Kannamangala Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards1
acre of land in
12 EASR12 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
Sy.No.50/p5,
Kannamangala Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards 1
acre of land in
13 EASR13 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
Sy.No.50/p4,
Kannamangala Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
14 EASR14 Rs.29,47100 Rs.00
Sy.No.67,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
15 EASR15 Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.464/1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
16 EASR16 Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.78/A1B1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
17 EASR17 Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.502/A of
Kollegala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
18 EASR18 Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.116/B of
kollegala
Registration and
19 EASR19 stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.88 of Kollegala
Registration and
20 EASR20 stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.116 of Kollegala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
21 EASR21 Rs.55000 Rs.00
Sy.No.228/1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
22 EASR22 Rs.3,32,83500 Rs.00
Sy.No.50/p2 of
Kannamangala
23 EASR23 Registration and Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500
144 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
stamp duty towards
Site No.14, Ward
No.38, Nagarabhavi
Main Road
Registration and
stamp duty towards
24 EASR24 Rs.9,53000 Rs.00
Site No.8 of
Nagarabhavi
Registration and
stamp duty towards
25 EASR25 Assessment No.47, Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000
Katha No.2875 of
Nagarabhavi Village
Registration and
stamp duty towards
26 EASR26 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
Sy.No.169 of
Kannamangala
Cost incurred towards
registration and stamp
27 EASR27 duties to gift deed Rs.1,89000 Rs.00
executed by father of
the accused
Cost incurred towards
registration and stamp
duties to gift deed
28 EASR28 Rs.1,96000 Rs.00
executed by
grandmother of the
husband
Registration and
stamp duty towards
29 EASR29 Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 and Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000
64/3 of
Ranganathapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
30 EASR30 Sy.No.10.46/3 and Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000
46/4 of
Ranganathapura
Registration and
31 EASR31 stamp duty towards Rs.32,02000 Rs.00
site No.48 of Malagala
Cost incurred towards
registration and stamp
duties to gift deed
32 EASR32 Rs.1,65000 Rs.00
executed by
grandmother of the
husband
Property tax paid
33 EAT1 towards Site No.78 of Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100
Nagarabhavi
Property tax paid
34 EAT2 towards Assessment Rs.14,14300 Rs.12,30000
No.47 of Nagarabhavi
145 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Property tax paid
35 EAT3 towards No.7, Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900
Nanjarasappa Layout
Property tax paid
36 EAT4 towards No.63 & 64 of Rs.96,08600 Rs.81,08600
Nagarabhavi
Property tax paid
37 EAT5 towards No.1233 of Rs.4,74600 Rs.00
Yashwanthapura Hobli
Property tax paid
38 EAT6 towards Site No.47 of Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300
Yashwanthapura Hobli
Property tax paid
towards House List
39 EAT7 Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400
No.5 of Rajarajeshwari
Nagar
BWSSB Charges paid
40 EWC1 towards No.3, Rs.31,76000 Rs.11,37200
Byraweshwara Nagar
KPTCL charges for
41 EEC1 No.3 Byraweshwara Rs.10,64000 Rs.00
Nagar
KPTCL charges paid
42 EEC2 towards No.3, Rs.83,95200 Rs.44,24100
Byraweshwara Nagar
Plan sanction charges
43 EAO1 paid towards No.3, Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300
Byraweshwara Nagar
Maintenance and fuel
EMF1 Rs.11,39000 Rs.11,39000
44 charges of vehicle
EMR1 Rs.50000 Rs.50000
No.KA41S5319
Insurance paid
45 EMI1 towards vehicle No.KA Rs.87200 Rs.87200
41S5319
Payment made
towards mobile charge
46 ECM1 Rs.1,86,65400 Rs.1,16,28900
of mobile
No.9880427055
Payment made
47 ECM2 towards mobile charge Rs.40,36700 Rs.12,49900
of airtel mobile
Payment made
48 ECT1 towards landline Rs.1,45,59700 Rs.1,16,84900
No.23217778
49 ERB1 Loan Repayment Rs.46,91,08800 Rs.34,53,18100
50 ERB2 Loan Repayment Rs.2,80,22000 Rs.2,44,22000
51 ERB3 Loan Repayment Rs.6,56,09300 Rs.2,44,07100
52 ERB4 Loan Repayment Rs.4,56,44400 Rs.00
53 ERB5 Loan Repayment Rs,8,96,46900 Rs,6,76,73000
54 ERB6 Loan Repayment Rs.10,47,20000 Rs.4,95,00000
55 ERB7 Loan Repayment Rs.10,13,57300 Rs.7,78,29300
146 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
56 ERB8 Loan Repayment Rs.5,99,13200 Rs.3,63,85200
57 ERB9 Loan Repayment Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700
Payment of Income Tax
58 EIT1 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500
by accused
Payment of Income tax
59 EIT2 Rs.1,05,33900 Rs.77,90000
by Ravi Kumar
Domestic Per Capita monthly
60 Rs.8,47,53500 Rs.6,15,53900
Expenditure expenditure
Cost incurred for
61 EP1 Rs.46,50000 Rs.12,76700
Labrador dog
Cost incurred for pug
62 EP2 Rs.31,55000 Rs.6,51700
dog
Payment made
63 EGC1 towards cooking gas Rs.39,75900 Rs.23,92100
No.620503
Payment made
64 EGC2 towards cooking gas Rs.52,71500 Rs.39,88300
No.611571
Payment incurred
65 EP1 & 2 Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000
towards passport
Educational expenses
66 EE1 Rs.96,92100 Rs.64,46000
of Sharath Kumar
Educational expenses
67 EE2 Rs.4,99,31000 Rs.4,69,90000
of Bharath Kumar
Payment made
68 ERC1 Rs.1,50000 Rs.00
towards satellite club
Rent paid towards
69 ERS1 running Byraveshwara Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000
Fabrication works
Payment made
70 EO1 towards Insurance Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900
policy
House expenditure
71 EO2 Rs.17,13,59400 Rs.00
shown in returns
Medical Expenditure of
72 EMISC1 accused at Fortis Rs.12,40100 Rs.00
Hospital
Value of the purchase
73 EMISC2 bill found in the house Rs.10,86000 Rs.8,50000
in respect of Fridge
Value of the purchase
74 EMISC3 bill found in the house Rs.29,90000 Rs.10,00000
in respect of Treadmill
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
75 EMISC4 Rs.14,95000 Rs.00
in respect of Mineral
Water Purifier
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
76 EMISC5 Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000
in respect of Kent
Grand Water level
147 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
controller
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
77 EMISC6 Rs.12,99000 Rs.6,00000
in respect of Kenstar
washing machine
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
78 EMISC7 Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000
in respect of Tessat
Watch
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
79 EMISC8 Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000
in respect of Nokia
Mobile
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
80 EMISC9 Rs.5,00000 Rs.5,00000
in respect of Bajaj
Chethak
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
81 EMISC10 Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000
in respect of Solar
system
Value of the purchase
82 EMISC11 bill found in the house Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000
in respect of mobile
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
83 EMISC12 Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000
in respect of Samsung
Mobile
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
84 EMISC13 Rs.24,22300 Rs.5,00000
in respect of Sony DVD
Music System
Value of the purchase
bill found in the house
85 EMISC14 Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000
in respect of Solar
Water Heater
Expenses incurred
86 EMISC15 Rs.1,42500 Rs.1,42500
towards Travelin Hotel
Payment made
EMISC16
87 towards congress party Rs.2,00000 Rs.2,00000
& 17
fund
Total Rs.1,61,00,35100 Rs.98,83,30400
27. Out of the above mentioned 87 heads of
expenditure, the accused has disputed only 47 heads of
148 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
expenditure and remaining heads of expenditure have
been admitted by the accused.
28. As per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.551/2019, if this Court finds
that the accused was not a public servant for a period
from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the assets said to have
been earned by the accused during this period cannot be
taken note of. As discussed above, this Court has given a
finding that the accused was not a public servant for a
period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. The learned
counsel for the accused has argued that the Judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court cannot go beyond the
provision of the Act, therefore this Court can interpret
the Judgment of the High Court in consonance with the
provisions of the PC Act. He further argued that since in
Prevention of Corruption cases are to ascertain
disproportionate asset, Court has to consider assets,
expenditure and income of the accused. The learned
public prosecutor has argued that if this Court has not
consider expenditure of the accused, it would be against
149 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and
it would amounts to contempt of Court. After perusal of
the order in Crl.R.P.No.551/2019, I came to know that
the Hon’ble High Court has not directed not to consider
expenditure and income of the accused, but has directed
not to consider the assets of the accused during the
period in which the accused was not a public servant
i.e., from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, this
Court has not considered the assets earned during the
period from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but the
expenditure of the accused made during the period from
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 has to be considered.
Accordingly, I proceed to discuss the evidence and
arguments of both sides on expenditure one by one.
(I). EASR1: Payment of Rs.32,30000 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site
Nos.63 and 64:
(a). On the basis of documents collected from
SubRegistrar, Peenya, Bengaluru, the investigating
officer has considered an amount of Rs.32,30000
150 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
which was paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee
and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration of
site Nos.63 and 64 of Nagarabhavi, as expenses of
the accused. The accused has not disputed payment
of Rs.32,30000 by her husband for Registration of
these sites and not objected to consider this amount
as her expenditure. In this regard the prosecution
has got marked a document as Ex.P111. In view of
admissions of the accused and considering the
contents of Ex.P111, I have considered Rs.32,300
00 as an expenditure of the accused.
(II). EASR2: Payment of Rs.23,24100 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in Sy.No.16/p7:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the
investigating officer has considered an amount of
Rs.23,24100, which was paid towards Stamp duty,
Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for
registration of land in Sy.No.16/p7, as expenses of
151 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the accused. The accused has not disputed payment
of Rs.23,24100 by her husband for Registration of
the land and not objected to consider this amount
towards her expenditure. The prosecution has also
got marked a letter of SubRegistrar and copy of sale
deed as Ex.P64. In view of admissions of the accused
and perusal of Ex.P64, I have considered
Rs.23,24100 as an expenditure of the accused.
(III). EASR3: Payment of Rs.31,91500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site
No.2/83/2:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Peenya, the investigating officer has
considered an amount of Rs.31,91500, which was
paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site
No.2/83/2 as an expenses of the accused. In this
regard the prosecution has got marked a letter of
subregistrar and copy of sale deed as Ex.P42
through PW2 and PW9 has identified it. The
152 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused has not disputed payment of Rs.31,91500
by her husband for Registration of these sites and
not objected to consider this amount towards her
expenditure. In view of admissions of the accused, I
have considered Rs.31,91500 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(IV). EASR4: Payment of Rs.13,49000 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in Sy.No.3:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Peenya, the investigating officer has
considered an amount of Rs.13,49000 paid towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous
expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.3, as an
expenses of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked a letter of subregistrar
and copy of sale deed which are in Ex.P42 and PW9
has identified these documents. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.13,49000 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
153 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
consider this amount towards her expenditure. In
view of admissions of the accused, I have considered
Rs.13,49000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(V). EASR5: Payment of Rs.82,12000 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in site Nos.2 and 3:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has
considered an amount of Rs.82,12000 paid towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous
expenses for registration of land in site Nos.2 and 3,
as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.82,12000 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
consider this amount towards her expenditure. In
this regard the prosecution has also got marked a
letter of subregistrar and copy of sale deed as Ex.P
136 through PW9. The accused has not disputed
contents of this document. In view of admissions of
the accused and contents of documents, I have
154 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
considered Rs.82,12000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(VI). EASR6: Payment of Rs.28,77500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in Sy.No.16/p4:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the
investigating officer has considered an amount of
Rs.28,77500, which was paid towards Stamp duty,
Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses
for registration of 2 acres 33 guntas of land in
Sy.No.16/p4, as an expenses of the accused. In this
regard the prosecution has got marked a letter of
subregistrar, copy of sale deed and encumbrance
certificate etc., as Ex.P65 through PW2 and PW9
has identified this document. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.28,77500 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
consider this amount towards her expenditure. In
view of admissions of the accused, I have considered
Rs.28,77500 as an expenditure of the accused.
155 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(VII). EASR7: Payment of Rs.30,43500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in Sy.No.16/p4:
(a). The investigating officer has considered an
amount of Rs.30,43500 paid towards Stamp duty,
Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses
for registration of 3 acres of land Sy.No.16/p4, as an
expenses of the accused. In this regard the
investigating officer has collected letter of Sub
Registrar, copy of sale deed and encumbrance
certificate which are at Ex.P66. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.30,43500 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
consider this amount towards her expenditure. The
accused has also not disputed contents of Ex.P66.
In view of admissions of the accused, I have
considered Rs.30,43500 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(VIII). EASR8: Payment of Rs.30,43500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
156 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of property
in Sy.No.16/p5:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the
investigating officer has considered an amount of
Rs.30,43500, which was paid towards Stamp duty,
Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses
for registration of 3 acres of land Sy.No.16/p5, as an
expenses of the accused. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.30,43500 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
consider this amount towards her expenditure. The
documents pertaining to this property has been got
marked by the prosecution as Ex.P67. In view of
admissions of the accused and contents of Ex.P67, I
have considered Rs.30,43500 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(IX). EASR9: Payment of Rs.41,53000 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.1:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has
157 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
considered an amount of Rs.41,53000, which was
paid towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.1,
as an expenses of the accused. In order to
substantiate its contention the prosecution has got
marked the documents as Ex.P39. The accused has
not disputed payment of Rs.41,53000 by her
husband for Registration of the land and not objected
to consider this amount towards her expenditure. In
view of admissions of the accused, I have considered
Rs.41,53000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(X). EASR10: Payment of Rs.2,99,07000 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site
No.78:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has
considered an amount of Rs.2,99,07000 paid
towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of site No.78,
as an expenses of the accused. The accused has not
158 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
disputed payment of Rs.2,99,07000 by her husband
for Registration of the land and not objected to
consider this amount towards her expenditure. In
this regard the prosecution has also got marked the
documents as Ex.P40. In view of admissions of the
accused, I have considered Rs.2,99,07000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XI). EASR11: Payment of Rs.14,58500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of
land in Sy.No.50/p3:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the
investigating officer has considered an amount of
Rs.14,58500, which was paid towards Stamp duty,
Registration fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for
registration of the land, as an expenses of the
accused. The prosecution has also got marked the
documents as Ex.P68. The accused has not disputed
payment of Rs.14,58500 by her husband for
Registration of the land and not objected to consider
159 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
this amount towards her expenditure. In view of
admissions of the accused, I have considered
Rs.14,58500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XII). EASR12: Payment of Rs.14,61500 towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of
land in Sy.No.50/p5:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar, the investigating officer has
considered an amount of Rs.14,61500 paid towards
Stamp duty, Registration fee and other Miscellaneous
expenses for registration of this land, as an expenses
of the accused. The accused has not disputed
payment of Rs.14,61500 by her husband for
Registration of the land and not objected to consider
this amount towards her expenditure. In this regard
the prosecution has also got marked the documents
as Ex.P69. In view of admissions of the accused, I
have considered Rs.14,61500 as an expenditure of
the accused.
160 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XIII). EASR13: Payment of Rs.14,61500
towards Stamp duty, Registration fee and other
Miscellaneous expenses for registration of 1 acre of
land in Sy.No.50/p4:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Doddaballapura taluk, the
investigating officer has considered an amount of
Rs.14,61500 paid towards Stamp duty, Registration
fee and other Miscellaneous expenses for registration
of this land, as an expenses of the accused. In order
to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has
got marked the letter and copy of sale deed as Ex.P
70. The accused has not disputed payment of
Rs.14,61500 by her husband for Registration of the
land and not objected to consider this amount
towards her expenditure. In view of admissions of the
accused, I have considered Rs.14,61500 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XIV). EASR14: Payment of Rs.29,47100 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
161 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
miscellaneous expenditure for Registration of land in
Sy.No.67:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 15.10.2007
husband of the accused has purchased 3 acre 17
guntas of land in Sy.No.67 for consideration of
Rs.10,00,00000 and he has paid Rs.20,73600
towards Stamp Duty, Rs.2,40000 towards
Registration Fee and Rs.50500 towards
Miscellaneous expenses, hence this amount is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased
this property on 05.10.2007 and as per the contents
of Ex.P71, he had paid Rs.20,73600 towards Stamp
duty, Rs.2,40000 towards Registration fee and
Rs.50500 towards Miscellaneous expenses. It is
further admitted the fact that the accused has got
executed a consent deed on 26.10.2007 by Smt.
Venkatamma and others, in respect of this property
and paid stamp duty of Rs.85000, Registration fee of
Rs.10000 and other miscellaneous charges of
Rs.24000. In his evidence, PW9 has deposed that
162 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
as the accused had paid Rs.29,47100 for
Registration of 3 acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67,
he has considered this amount as an expenditure of
the accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
accused is that at the time of purchase of this
property accused was not a public servant, hence
this expenditure should not be considered. As
discussed above, the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has directed not to consider assets of the
accused but not directed not to consider expenditure
of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and
22.04.2010 in which the accused was not a public
servant. Therefore, I have considered Rs.29,47100
as an expenditure of the accused.
(XV). EASR15: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.464/1:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 09.09.2008
husband of the accused has purchased the land in
Sy.No.464/1 for consideration of Rs.1,00,00000 and
163 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
he has paid Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.200
00 towards Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards
Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered as
expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, husband of
the accused had purchased this property on
09.09.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he
had paid Rs.20000 towards Stamp duty, Rs.20000
towards Registration fee and Rs.15000 towards
scanning fee. In his evidence PW9 has deposed that
as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for Registration of
4 cents of land in Sy.No.464/1, he has considered
same as an expenditure of the accused. Argument of
the learned counsel for the accused is that during
purchase of this property the accused was not a
public servant, hence this expenditure should not be
considered. As discussed above, the Hon’ble High
Court has directed not to consider assets of the
accused but not directed not to consider expenditure
of the accused during the period 24.11.2006 and
164 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000
as an expenditure of the accused.
(XVI) EASR16: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
miscellaneous expenditure for Registration of land in
Sy.No.78/A1 B1:
(a). As per the Final Report husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.78/A1 B1
on 10.07.2008 for Rs.25,00000 and he has paid
Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.20000 towards
Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards
Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is considered
as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the
husband of the accused had purchased this property
on 11.07.2008 and as per the contents of Ex.P61 he
had paid Rs.15000 towards Stamp Duty, Rs.20000
towards Registration Fee and Rs.15000 towards
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for
Registration of 219.4 metres of land in Sy.No.78/A1
B1, he has considered same as an expenditure of the
165 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
accused is that during purchase of this property the
accused was not a public servant, hence this
expenditure should not be considered. As discussed
above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed not to
consider assets of the accused but not directed not
to consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XVII). EASR17: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.502/A:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.502/A on
28.08.2008 for Rs.62,50000 and he has paid
Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee
and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, the husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per
166 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000
towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for
Registration of 2.59 acres of land in Sy.No.502/A, he
has considered same as an expenditure of the
accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
accused is that during purchase of this property the
accused was not a public servant, hence this
expenditure should not be considered. As discussed
above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed not to
consider assets of the accused but not directed not
to consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XVIII). EASR18: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.116/B:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.116/B on
167 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
09.09.2008 for Rs.25,00000 and he has paid
Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee
and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, the husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 09.09.2008 and as per
the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000
towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for
Registration of 0.60 x 0.75 cents of land in
Sy.No.116/B, he has considered same as an
expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned
counsel for the accused is that during purchase of
this property the accused was not a public servant,
hence this expenditure should not be considered. As
discussed above, the Hon’ble High Court has
directed not to consider assets of the accused but
not directed not to consider expenditure of the
accused during the period 24.11.2006 and
168 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
22.04.2010. Therefore, I have considered Rs.55000
as an expenditure of the accused.
(XIX). EASR19: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.88:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.88 on
28.08.2008 for Rs.37,50000 and he has paid
Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused. Admittedly,
the husband of the accused had purchased this
property on 28.08.2008 and as per the contents of
Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty,
Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses. In his
evidence PW9 has deposed that as the accused had
paid Rs.55000 for Registration of 1.50 acres of land
in Sy.No.88, he has considered same as an
expenditure of the accused. Argument of the learned
counsel for the accused is that during purchase of
169 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
this property the accused was not a public servant,
hence this expenditure should not be considered. As
discussed above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed
not to consider assets of the accused but not directed
not to consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XX). EASR20: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.116:
(a). As per the Final Report, husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.116 on
28.08.2008 for Rs.62,50000 and he has paid
Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, the husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per
the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000
170 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for
Registration of 1.50 acres of land in Sy.No.116, he
has considered same as an expenditure of the
accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
accused is that during purchase of this property the
accused was not a public servant, hence this
expenditure should not be considered. As discussed
above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed not to
consider assets of the accused but not directed not to
consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XXI). EASR21: Payment of Rs.55000 towards
Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure
for Registration of land in Sy.No.228/1:
(a). As per the Final Report husband of the
accused has purchased the land in Sy.No.228/1 on
171 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
28.08.2008 for Rs.40,00000 and he has paid
Rs.55000 towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee
and towards Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, the husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 28.08.2008 and as per
the contents of Ex.P61 he had paid Rs.55000
towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.55000 for
Registration of 1.80 acres of land in Sy.No.228/1, he
has considered same as an expenditure of the
accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
accused is that during purchase of this property the
accused was not a public servant, hence this
expenditure should not be considered. As discussed
above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed not to
consider assets of the accused but not directed not
to consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
172 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
considered Rs.55000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XXII). EASR22: Payment of Rs.3,32,83500
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of land in Sy.No.169:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 05.01.2009
husband of the accused has purchased the land in
Sy.No.169 for Rs.25,00,00000 and he has paid
Rs.3,32,83500 towards Stamp Duty, Registration
Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence same is
considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, the husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 05.01.2009 and as per
the contents of Ex.P35 he had paid Rs.3,32,83500
towards Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and
Miscellaneous expenses. In his evidence PW9 has
deposed that as the accused had paid Rs.3,32,835
00 for Registration of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.169, he
has considered same as an expenditure of the
accused. Argument of the learned counsel for the
173 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused is that during purchase of this property the
accused was not a public servant, hence this
expenditure should not be considered. As discussed
above, the Hon’ble High Court has directed not to
consider assets of the accused but not directed not to
consider expenditure of the accused during the
period 24.11.2006 and 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.3,32,83500 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XXIII). EASR23: Payment of Rs.45,36500
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of site No.8:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
Rs.45,36500 paid towards Registration Fee, Stamp
duty and other expenditure for Registration of site
No.14. Admittedly, the accused has purchased this
site on 15.12.2003 for Rs.4,72,00000 and the
accused has also not disputed payment of Rs.45,365
00 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of the site. As per the
174 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
sale deed which is in Ex.P41, the accused has
purchased this property on 15.12.2003. Therefore, I
have considered an amount of Rs.45,36500 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XXIV). EASR24 – Payment of Rs.9,53000
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of site No.8:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 28.01.2002 Smt.
Siddamma, who is the grand mother of husband of
the accused had gifted this property in favour of
husband of the accused and the husband of the
accused had paid Rs.9,53000 towards Stamp Duty,
Registration Fee and towards Miscellaneous
expenses, hence same is considered as expenditure
of the accused. Admittedly, grand mother of husband
of the accused had gifted this property under a gift
deed, which is marked as Ex.P76. The learned
counsel for the accused has argued that as grand
mother has gifted to her grand son due to love and
affection, the registration fee and other charges were
175 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015borne by herself, and the accused has not paid any
amount for registration of gift deed. The learned
public prosecutor has argued that there is no
document to show who has paid registration fee and
other miscellaneous expenses, as the property has
been registered in the name of husband of the
accused, this expenses should be considered. In his
chief examination, DW6 has deposed that site No.8
was gifted by his grandmother. But he has not
deposed whether his grandmother has paid the
registration fee or he has paid it. In his cross
examination PW9 has also stated that Smt.
Siddamma has gifted this property in favour of
husband of the accused and no documents were
traced out to show that husband of the accused had
paid registration fee and stamp duty. Generally,
when the property was gifted out of love and affection
to the nearest and dearest person or relative, donor
would borne the expenses of registration and other
charges. In his crossexamination, PW9 has also
176 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015admitted that, he has not enquired either husband of
the accused or his grandmother to know about the
person who paid stamp duty or registration fee. The
investigation officer has not collected any material to
show that this amount was actually paid by husband
of the accused and not by his grandmother. Except
the gift deed, which shows payment of Rs.9,53000
towards registration and stamp duty, nothing is on
record to prove that the husband of the accused has
borne this amount. In the absence of evidence on
record, I decline to consider Rs.9,53000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XXV). EASR25: Payment of Rs.20,12000
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of site bearing
Asst.No.47/Khata No.2875:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
Rs.20,12000, which was paid towards Registration
Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for
Registration of this site. Admittedly, the accused has
purchased this site on 04.02.2004 for Rs.1,98,000
177 Spl. C.C. No.376/201500 and the accused has also not disputed payment of
Rs.20,12000 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty
and other expenditure for Registration of the site. As
per the sale deed which is at Ex.P118, the accused
has purchased this property on 04.02.2004.
Therefore, I have considered an amount of
Rs.20,12000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXVI). EASR26: Payment of Rs.14,61500
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of land in old
Sy.No.50/p1 and New Sy.No.169:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
Rs.14,61500, which was paid towards Registration
Fee, Stamp duty and other expenditure for
Registration of this site. Admittedly, the accused has
purchased this site on 15.07.2006 for Rs.1,50,000
00 and the accused has also not disputed payment of
Rs.14,61500 towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty
and other expenditure for Registration of the site.
178 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Therefore, I have considered an amount of
Rs.14,61500 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXVII). EASR27: Payment of Rs.1,89000 for
Registration of gift deed of the house bearing
Assessment No.38/2 and Khata No.1200:
(a). As per the Final Report, father of the accused
by name G. Narayana Swamy has gifted this property
in favour of the accused on 02.03.2007 and the
accused has paid Rs.1,89000 towards Stamp Duty,
Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence
same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, father of the accused had gifted this
property under a gift deed, which is marked as Ex.P
104. The learned counsel for the accused has argued
that as father of the accused has gifted this property
to the accused due to love and affection, the
registration fee and other charges were borne by
himself and the accused has not paid any amount for
registration of gift deed. In his cross examination PW
9 has also admitted that father of the accused G.
179 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Narayana Swamy has given this property under the
Gift Deed. PW9 has further admitted that no
documents are available to show who has paid the
Registration fee and stamp duty. He further admitted
that in that regard he has not enquired either the
accused or his father. Generally, when the property
was gifted to the nearest relative out to love and
affection, the donor will borne the expenses of
registration as same was gifted out of love and
affection. Except the gift deed there is no any other
document to show that registration and stamp duty
was paid by the accused. Apart from that the gift
deed was registered on 02.03.2007, when the
accused was not a public servant. Therefore, I decline
to consider Rs.1,89000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XXVIII). EASR28: Payment of Rs.1,96000 for
Registration of the site bearing Khata No.47 and site
No.7:
(a). As per the Final Report, grandmother of
husband of the accused by name Smt. Siddamma
180 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015had gifted this property in favour of husband of the
accused on 30.10.2011 and husband of the accused
had paid Rs.1,96000 towards Stamp Duty,
Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence
same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, grand mother of the husband of the
accused had gifted this property under a gift deed
which is marked as Ex.P106. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that as grandmother of
the husband of the accused has gifted to the
husband of the accused due to love and affection, the
registration fee and other charges were borne by
herself, and the husband of the accused has not paid
any amount for registration of gift deed. In his cross
examination PW9 has also admitted that grand
mother of husband of the accused by name Smt.
Siddamma has given this property under a Gift Deed.
He further admitted that no documents are available
to show who has paid the Registration fee and stamp
duty. He further admitted that in this regard he has
181 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
not enquired either the husband of the accused or
his grand mother. Generally, when the property was
gifted to the nearest relative, due to love and
affection, the donor will borne the expenses of
registration as same was gifted out of love and
affection. There is no document to show that
registration fee and stamp duty was paid by husband
of the accused. In the absence of evidence on record,
I decline to consider Rs.1,96000 as an expenditure
of the accused.
(XXIX). EASR29: Payment of Rs.73,66000 for
Stamp duty, Registration fee and Miscellaneous
expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.64/1, 64/2
and 64/3
(a). The investigating officer has considered this
amount as an expenditure of the accused on the
basis of the documents which are marked as Ex.P
107. Contention of the prosecution is that husband
of the accused has purchased the lands in these
survey numbers and paid registration and other
miscellaneous charges of Rs.73,66000. The accused
182 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
has not denied payment of Registration fee, stamp
duty and other miscellaneous charges of Rs.73,660
00. In view of the contents of Ex.P115 and
admission of the accused, I have considered
Rs.73,66000 as expenses of the accused.
(XXX). EASR30: Payment of Rs.29,45000 for
Stamp duty, Registration fee and Miscellaneous
expenses for registration of land in Sy.No.10, 46/3
and 46/4:
(a). The investigating officer has consider this
amount as an expenditure of the accused on the
basis of the documents which are marked as Ex.P
115. Contention of the prosecution is that husband
of the accused has purchased the lands in these
survey numbers and paid registration charges and
other charges of Rs.29,45000. The accused has not
denied payment of Registration fee, stamp duty and
other miscellaneous charges of Rs.29,45000. In view
of the contents of Ex.P115 and admission of the
accused, I have considered Rs.29,45000 as
expenses of the accused.
183 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XXXI). EASR31: Payment of Rs.32,02000
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of Site No.48 in
Sy.No.3:
(a). As per the Final Report, on 05.05.2007
husband of the accused has purchased the Site
No.48 in Sy.No.3 for consideration of Rs.3,36,00000
and he has paid Rs.32,02000 towards Stamp Duty,
Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence
same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, husband of the accused had purchased
this property on 05.05.2007 and as per the contents
of Ex.P97 he had paid Rs.32,02000 towards Stamp
Duty, Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses.
In his evidence PW9 has deposed that as the
accused had paid Rs.32,02000 for Registration of
site, he has considered same as an expenditure of the
accused. Since, husband of the accused had
purchased this property he had to pay registration
fee and stamp duty, but argument of the learned
counsel for the accused is that on 05.05.2007 the
184 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused was not a public servant, hence this amount
should not be considered as an expenditure.
Admittedly, this amount was paid during the check
period. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
directed this Court not to consider assets of the
accused if it is found that she was not a public
servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
but not directed not to consider the expenditure
during this period. Therefore, by rejecting the
arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, I
have considered Rs.32,02000 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(XXXII). EASR32: Payment of Rs.1,65000
towards Registration Fee, Stamp duty and other
expenditure for Registration of site No.8, Assessment
No.47:
(a). As per the Final Report, Smt. Siddamma who
is the grandmother of husband of the accused had
gifted this property in favour of husband of the
accused on 29.05.2010 and husband of the accused
had paid Rs.1,65000 towards Stamp Duty,
185 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Registration Fee and Miscellaneous expenses, hence
same is considered as expenditure of the accused.
Admittedly, grand mother of the husband of the
accused had gifted this property under a gift deed
which is marked as Ex.P130. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that as grandmother has
gifted to her grand son due to love and affection, the
registration fee and other charges were borne by
herself, and the accused has not paid any amount
for registration of gift deed. In his cross examination
PW9 has also stated that Smt. Siddamma has gifted
this property in favour of husband of the accused
and no documents were traced out to show that
husband of the accused had paid registration fee and
stamp duty. Generally, when the property was gifted
to the nearest and dearest person or a relative out of
love and affection, the registration and other
expenses would be borne by the donor. Further, PW
9 has also admitted that, he has not enquired either
husband of the accused or his grand mother to know
186 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
about the person who paid stamp duty or
registration fee. There is on evidence on record to
prove that husband of the accused had paid
Registration fee and other charges for registration of
the gift deed. In the absence of evidence on record, I
decline to consider Rs.1,65000 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(XXXIII). EAT1: Payment of revenue of
Rs.60,05100 in respect of House No.78,
Nagarabhavi:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
Revenue Officer, BBMP. Basaveswaranagara, the
investigating officer has considered Rs.60,05100 as
an expenditure of accused. The accused has admitted
payment of Rs.60,05100 towards revenue for the
House No.78 which is in 2nd stage, 8th Block,
Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. In order to prove its
contention, the prosecution has got marked revenue
receipts as Ex.P86. In view of he admission by the
187 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused, I have considered Rs.60,05100 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XXXIV). EAT2: Payment of tax of Rs.14,14300
in respect of site bearing Assessment No.47, Khata
No.2875:
(a). In the final report, the Investigating Officer
has reported that during the search in the house of
accused, he has traced out tax paid receipts, in this
regard he has sought details from revenue officials,
but he has not received any documents. Prosecution
has contended that as per the revenue receipts,
which are seized from the house of the accused, she
had paid Rs.12,30000 towards revenue. In his
evidence PW9 has deposed that accused had paid
revenue in respect of site in Assessment No.47 and
Khata No.2875 is Rs.14,14300. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that the amount covered
under the receipt is Rs.12,30000, but Investigating
Officer has wrongly taken it as Rs.14,14300, hence
188 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.1,84300 is liable to be deducted from Rs.14,143
00.
(b). It is to be noted that in the Final Report
though the Investigating Officer has contended that
husband of the accused had paid revenue of
Rs.12,30000, while calculating he has considered
Rs.14,14300 towards expenditure. The prosecution,
accused and PW9 have contended that as per Ex.P
48, accused had paid the revenue in respect of the
above mentioned site. But, Ex.P48 is the property
file submitted by the investigating officer along with
the mahazar, but not revenue receipt. After perusal of
entire file, I came to know that the prosecution has
not got marked revenue receipt of either Rs.12,300
00 or Rs.14,14300. At page No.1 to 15 of file No.7,
the Investigating Officer has kept xerox copy of the
revenue receipt, which says that on 24.06.2004
husband of the accused had paid Rs.13,30000 on
24.06.2004 and on 17.12.2009 he had paid Rs.843
00 towards revenue of the property. These receipts
189 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
are xerox documents and not got marked by the
prosecution. But, the accused herself has admitted
that her husband had paid revenue of Rs.12,30000
towards site bearing Assessment No.47 during the
check period. Therefore, I have considered
Rs.12,30000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXV). EAT3: Payment of Rs.36,74900 towards
revenue tax of the house No.7, Nanjarasappa layout,
Bengaluru:
(a). On the basis of revenue receipts traced out in
the house of the accused, the investigating officer
has considered Rs.36,74900 as an expenditure of
the accused. The accused has not disputed that
house No.7 belonged to her husband and payment of
revenue of Rs.36,74900. Hence, Rs.36,74900 is
considered as an expenses of the accused.
(XXXVI). EAT4: Payment of Rs.96,08600
towards Revenue for site Nos.63 and 64 of
Assessment No.83/1:
(a). On the basis of details obtained from BBMP,
Basaveswaranagara, the investigating officer has
190 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
considered Rs.96,08600 as an expenditure of the
accused. It is the contention of the prosecution that
husband of the accused has paid the revenue of
Rs,96,086 for these sites. A perusal of Ex.P5 makes
it clear that husband of the accused Sri. H.
Ravikumar has purchased site Nos.63 and 64 for
Rs.3,60,00000. But, the learned counsel for the
accused has argued that an amount of Rs.15,00000
was paid on 18.11.2008, therefore Rs.15,00000 has
to be deducted from Rs.96,08600 as the accused
was not a public servant in the year 2008 and
consider only Rs.81,08600 as an expenditure of the
accused. A perusal of Ex.P92 makes it clear that the
accused had paid an amount of Rs.96,08600
towards revenue of this property from 07.04.2003 to
03.06.2011 i.e., within the check period. As
discussed above, this court has given a finding that
from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 accused was not a
public servant. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
has directed not to consider the assets, but not
191 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
directed not to consider the expenses of this period.
Therefore, by rejecting the arguments of the learned
counsel for the accused, I have considered
Rs.96,08600 as an expenditure of the accused.
(XXXVII). EAT5: Payment of Rs.4,74600 towards
tax on property No.74/ Assessment No.83:
(a). At the time of search in the house of the
accused, Investigating Officer has traced out Sale
Deed, Revenue receipts etc., pertaining to the
property No.74, as per said receipts, revenue of
Rs.4,74600 was paid to BBMP. But the learned
counsel for the accused has argued that husband of
the accused has purchased this property on
05.04.2006, before the sale transaction one Shantha
Umapathi had paid property tax, therefore this
amount cannot be considered as expenditure of the
accused. A perusal of the Sale Deed, which is marked
at Ex.P134, states that husband of the accused had
purchased this property on 05.04.2006. Copy of the
revenue receipt annexed to the Sale Deed (file No.4,
192 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
page 1415), which was seized during the search
shows that revenue of Rs.4,74600 was paid on
07.01.2006 i.e., within the check period. But, this
copy of the receipt clearly states that the revenue was
paid by one Shantha Umapathi i.e., seller of the
property, but not husband of the accused. Therefore,
I decline to consider this amount as an expenditure
of the accused.
(XXXVIII). EAT6: Payment of Rs.1,02,72300
towards tax on site No.47:
(a). On the basis of documents collected from
Revenue officer, Laggere subdivision, BBMP, the
investigating officer has considered Rs.1,02,72300
which was paid towards tax on site No.47 as an
expenditure of the accused. Ex.P7, the sale deed
states that this property belonged to the husband of
the accused. On the other hand, the accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.1,02,72300 towards tax for
this property. In view of the admission of the
193 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015accused, I have considered Rs.1,02,72300 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XXXIX). EAT7: Payment of Rs.2,63400 towards
tax on House No.5, Mallathalli, Bengaluru.
(a). On the basis of revenue receipts traced out in
the house of the accused, the investigating officer has
considered Rs.2,63400 as an expenditure of the
accused. As per Ex.P104, this property was gifted by
father of the accused in favour of the accused and it
is in the name of the accused. On the other hand, the
accused has not disputed payment of Rs.2,63400
towards tax on the house. In view of the admission of
the accused, I have considered Rs.2,63400 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XL). EWC1: Payment of water Cess of Rs.31,760
00 in respect of the House No.3, Bhyraveswara
Nagara, Bengaluru:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this
amount as an expenses of the accused as husband of
the accused has paid this amount to BWSSB. The
accused has not disputed payment of Rs.31,76000
194 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015towards water cess in respect of the house No.3. In
this regard the prosecution has got marked Ex.P122,
which shows the payment of water cess by the
husband of the accused. But the learned counsel for
the accused has argued that Ex.P122 says that the
payment period starts from April 2005 to April 2012,
since the accused was not a public servant between
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the amount paid during
this period has to be excluded.
(b). A perusal of Ex.P122 makes it clear that
husband of the accused has paid monthly water bill
from April 2005 to April 2012. Since, the check
period in this case is from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011
and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.
No.551/2009 has directed not to consider the asset
said to be earned between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
but not the expenditures of the accused. Further,
though Ex.P122 containing details of water cess
paid from January 2006 to June 2012, the
investigating officer has considered the water cess
195 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
paid during the check period only. Hence, I have
considered the amount paid by the husband of the
accused towards water cess. i.e., Rs.31,76000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XLI). EEC1: Payment electricity bill of
Rs.10,64000 for house No.3:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this
amount as an expenditure of the accused on the
basis of the documents collected from BESCOM,
Bengaluru. As per the case of the prosecution from
04.05.2005 to 18.12.2011 husband of the accused
has paid Rs.10,64000 towards electricity charges.
The learned counsel for the accused has argued that
this amount was paid from 04.03.2005 to
18.12.2011, the accused was not a public servant
from 24.01.2006 to 22.04.2010, report does not
indicate the date on which payment were made, in
this regard the Investigating Officer has not examined
any witnesses, therefore this amount has to be
deducted from the expenses of the accused. In his
chief examination, PW9 has deposed that an amount
196 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of Rs.10,64000 was deposited to take electricity
connection. A perusal of the documents in Ex.P81
makes it clear that an amount of Rs.10,64000 was
deposited to take electricity connection. Ex.P81 is a
public document and this document has been got
marked by the prosecution through the investigating
officer (PW2). This document, which is in page
No.1120 of file No.3(2) is very clear that this amount
was paid under a receipt dated 03.03.2005 ie.,
during the check period. Therefore, I have considered
an amount of Rs.10,64000 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XLII). EEC2: Payment electricity charges of Rs.
83,95200 for house No.3:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this
amount as an expenditure of the accused on the
basis of Ex.P81, which says that from 04.05.2005 to
24.11.2011 husband of the accused has paid an
amount of Rs.83,95200 towards electricity charges.
The accused has admitted payment of electricity
charges of Rs.83,95200, but he has contended that
197 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the period of payment starts from May 2005 to
December 2011, since the accused was not a public
servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, an
amount of Rs.39,71100 has to be deducted from the
amount taken by the Investigating Officer. In his
chief examination PW9 has admitted that from
26.12.2006 to 06.03.2010 the accused has paid
Rs.39,71100 towards electricity charges and he was
not a public servant from 26.12.2006 to 06.03.2010.
A perusal of the documents in Ex.P81 (page No.1119
to 1122) makes it clear that the accused had paid
total electricity charges of Rs.83,95200 from
04.05.2005 to 18.12.2011. But, the check period is
from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011 and as per Ex.P81
(page No.1122) the accused had paid an amount of
Rs.1,61800 on 18.12.2011, therefore, Rs.1,61800
has to be deducted from Rs.83,95200, if we do so it
comes to Rs.82,33400. Since the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka has not directed not to consider the
expenditure from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, I have
198 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
considered Rs.82,33400 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(XLIII). EAO1: Payment of fee of Rs.4,34300
towards approval of building sketch:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
Rajarajeshwari Nagara Municipality, the
investigating officer has considered this amount as
expenditure of the accused. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.4,34300 for approval of
sketch /plan in respect of property bearing No.3,
Bhyraveswara Nagar. In view of admission of the
accused regarding payment of Rs.4,34300 during
the check period, I have accepted Rs.4,34300 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(XLIV). EMF1 & EMR1: Payment of Rs.11,39000
towards fuel expenses and Rs.50000 towards
maintenance of the vehicle:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
Rs.11,39000 for fuel expenses and Rs.50000
towards maintenance of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA:41S:5319, which was in the name of son
of the accused by name Bharathkumar. In this
199 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
regard the prosecution has got marked the document
as Ex.P82. The accused has not disputed case of the
prosecution that she has spent this amount for fuel
and maintenance of the said vehicle. Therefore, I
have considered Rs.11,89000 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(XLV). EMI1: Payment of Rs.87200 towards
insurance of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41
S:5319:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
RTO, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, the investigating officer
has considered this amount said to be spent to take
take insurance policy to the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA:41S:5319. The accused has admitted
payment of Rs.87200 towards insurance of the
vehicle. Therefore, I have considered Rs.87200 as
an expenditure of the accused.
(XLVI). AV1: Expenses of Rs.42,12800 made
towards Insurance, Tax and maintenance of a two
wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA:41HM:5319:
(a). The investigating officer has considered this
amount of Rs.42,12800 under the head of Assets,
200 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015but as this is the expenses made towards insurance,
tax and maintenance of the vehicle, this must be
considered under the head of expenditure.
Accordingly, I have considered it under the head
Expenditure. The accused has admitted this
expenses towards the said vehicle. But, under
expenditure Code No.EMF1 and EMR1, the
investigating officer has considered Rs.50000
towards maintenance of the vehicle and under
expenditure Code EMI1, the investigating officer has
considered Rs.87200 towards insurance of the
vehicle. The investigating officer has not described
the period for which he has considered the
maintenance expenses and insurance. Therefore,
after deducting Rs.50000, which is considered under
expenditure Code No.EMF1 and Rs.87200, which is
considered under expenditure Code EMI1, I have
considered Rs.40,75600 as an expenditure of the
accused.
201 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XLVII). ECM1: Payment of Rs.1,86,65410 for
having service of Airtel mobile No.9880427055:
(a). On the basis of the documents seized from
the house of the accused at the time of raid and also
on the basis of the documents obtained from M/s.
Bharathi Airtel Ltd., the Investigating Officer has
considered Rs.1,86,65410 which was paid for the
service of Airtel mobile as an expenditure of the
accused.
(b). The learned counsel for the accused has
argued that from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 the
accused was not a public servant, hence an amount
of Rs.70,36500, which was paid by the accused
during this period has to be excluded. In his chief
examination PW9 has got marked Ex.P63 to prove
that the accused had paid Rs.1,84,59700 towards
mobile bearing No.9880427055. The accused has not
disputed payment of Rs.1,86,65410 from
28.01.2005 to 20.10.2011. No doubt, at para No229
of his cross examination, PW9 has admitted that
202 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
from 17.01.2007 to 27.08.2009 the accused has paid
Rs.70,36500 for mobile calls when she was not a
public servant. But, as aforesaid, the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka has not directed not to consider
expenditure of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but directed not to
consider the assets of the accused in this period.
Therefore, I have accepted the case of the prosecution
that the accused has spent an amount of
Rs.1,86,65400 for a mobile bearing
No.9880427055.
(XLVIII). ECM2: Payment of Rs.40,36700
towards Airtel mobile bill through the SB A/c.
No.563402010000577 of Union Bank of India :
(a). On the basis of the documents pertaining to
the bank account of husband of the accused by name
H. Ravikumar in Union Bank of India, the
Investigating Officer has considered Rs.40,36700
under the head expenditure holding that husband of
the accused paid this amount for the service of Airtel
203 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
mobile company through a cheque. The accused has
admitted payment of Rs.40,36700 through a cheque
for the service of Airtel mobile. The contention of the
accused is that as the accused was not a public
servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
the payment of Rs.27,86800 made in this period be
excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has not directed not to consider
expenditure of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted
the case of the prosecution that the accused has
spent an amount of Rs.40,36700 for the service of
Airtel mobile.
(XLIX). ECT1: Payment of Rs.1,45,59700 for
the service of BSNL phone No.23217778:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered this
amount as an expenditure on the basis of the
documents obtained from BSNL office. According to
the investigating officer, the accused has deposited
an amount of Rs.3,75000 for landline phone and
204 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
paid total amount of Rs.1,45,59700 from
07.03.2012 towards monthly bill. As per Ex.P72,
from 07.03.2012 the accused has paid phone bill of
Rs.1,45,59700 and she has also deposited Rs.3,750
00 on 28.02.2002. But the Investigating Officer has
not considered the deposited amount and he has
considered only monthly payment of landline bill.
The accused has not disputed payment of this
amount towards landline phone, but he has
contended that as the accused was not a public
servant during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
the payment of Rs.28,74800 made in this period be
excluded. But, as aforesaid the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has not directed not to consider
expenditure of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted
the case of the prosecution that the accused has
spent an amount of Rs.1,49,34700 for the service of
landline phone.
205 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(L). ERB1: Payment of loan of Rs.46,91,08894 in
respect of account No.0424/721/266 of Syndicate
Bank:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that
on the basis of the documents obtained from
Syndicate Bank, he came to know that on
25.01.2006 husband of the accused had borrowed
loan of Rs.30,00,00000 and from that day till
01.12.2011 he has repaid an amount of
Rs.46,91,08894 towards principal and interest,
hence this amount is considered as an expenditure of
the accused. In order to prove its contention
regarding loan and repayment of loan, the
prosecution has got marked Ex.P43 through PW2.
PW9 has also given his evidence about loan on the
basis of Ex.P43. The accused has not disputed that
her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.30,00,00000
and repaid the same with interest which amounts to
Rs.46,91,08894. The accused has contended that as
she was not a public servant during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the payment of
206 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.12,37,90700 made in that period be excluded.
But, as aforesaid the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has not directed not to consider
expenditure of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have accepted
the case of the prosecution that the accused has paid
an amount of Rs.46,91,08800 towards repayment
of loan and interest.
(LI). ERB2: Repayment of loan of Rs.2,80,22000
in respect of account No.49 of the Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that
on the basis of the documents obtained from
Rajajinagar Cooperative Bank, he came to know that
on 03.04.2010 husband of the accused had borrowed
loan of Rs.9,70,00000 and from 08.05.2010 to
10.03.2012 he has repaid an amount of Rs.2,80,220
00 towards principal and interest, hence this amount
is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In
order to prove its contention regarding loan and
207 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked
Ex.P57 through PW2 and PW9 has also identified
this document. The accused has not disputed that
her husband had borrowed loan of Rs.9,70,00000
on 03.04.2010 and repaid the same with interest
which amounts to Rs.2,80,22000 from 08.05.2010
to 10.03.2012. The accused has contended that the
check period ends on 17.12.2011, but the
Investigating Officer has calculated the amount paid
till 10.03.2012, the total amount paid till 17.12.2011
was Rs.36,00000, hence this amount has to be
excluded from Rs.2,80,22000. A perusal of Ex.P57,
makes it clear that from 08.05.2010 to 10.03.2012,
payment of Rs.2,80,22000 was made towards
principal and interest. But, as argued by the learned
counsel for the accused though the check period
ends on 17.12.2011, the investigating officer has
taken the payment made till 01.03.2012. After
careful perusal of Ex.P57, I came to know that from
26.12.2011 to 01.03.2012, the accused had paid
208 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.27,61900. But, till 30.11.2011 the accused had
paid an amount of Rs.2,52,60100. Therefore, after
exclusion of the amount paid after the check period,
it comes to Rs.2,52,60100 and same is considered
as an expenditure of the accused.
(LII). ERB3: Payment of loan of Rs.6,56,09300
in respect of account No.61035711 of LIC Housing
Finance:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that
on the basis of the documents obtained from LIC
Housing Finance Ltd., he came to know that on
02.09.2005 husband of the accused had borrowed
loan of Rs.9,60,00000 and from that day till
02.03.2012 he has repaid an amount of Rs.6,55,439
00 towards principal and interest, hence this amount
is considered as an expenditure of the accused. In
order to prove its contention regarding loan and
repayment of loan the prosecution has got marked
Ex.P90 and got examined PW2 and PW9. The
accused has not disputed that her husband had
borrowed loan of Rs.9,60,00000 and repaid the
209 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
same with interest which amounts to Rs.6,56,093
00. The accused has contended that as he was not a
public servant during the period 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, the payment of Rs.4,12,02200 made in
this period be excluded. A perusal of the Final Report
shows that the Investigating Officer has considered
payment of loan and interest till 02.03.2012, but the
check period ends on 17.12.2011, therefore the
amount paid after 17.12.2011 i.e., payment made on
02.12.2011 to 02.03.2012 has to be excluded. As per
Ex.P90 (Page No.1594) from 02.12.2011 to
02.03.2012 husband of the accused had paid
Rs.35,82800 and this amount has to be excluded
from Rs.6,56,09300, if we do so the repayment of
loan and interest paid by the accused comes to
Rs.6,20,26500. But the learned counsel for the
accused has further argued that as the accused was
not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010,
an amount of Rs.4,12,02200 has to be excluded.
But, as aforesaid the Hon’ble High Court of
210 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Karnataka has not directed not to consider
expenditure of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Therefore, I have
considered Rs.6,20,26500 as an expenditure of the
accused.
(LIII). ERB4: Repayment of loan of Rs.4,56,444
00 in respect of Gold loan in Muthoot Finance:
(a). The Investigating Officer has contended that
on the basis of the documents collected from
Muthoot Finance, he came to know that on
27.11.2008 husband of the accused had borrowed
loan of Rs.3,45,00000 by pledging 396.80 grams of
golden ornaments and from 27.02.2008 to
18.02.2010 he has repaid an amount of Rs.4,56,444
00 towards principal and interest of the loan amount,
hence same is considered as an expenditure of the
accused. In order to prove its contention regarding
loan and repayment of loan, prosecution has got
examined PW2 and PW9 and also got marked Ex.P
91. A perusal of Ex.P91 makes it clear that husband
211 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of the accused has made payment of Rs.4,56,44400
to Muthoot Finance Ltd., The accused has also not
denied the contention of the prosecution that her
husband has made payment of Rs.4,56,44400 to
Muthoot Finance Ltd towards repayment of loan.
But the learned counsel for the accused has argued
that as the accused was not a public servant from
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, entire amount of
Rs.4,56,44400 has to be excluded from the
expenditure of the accused. But as aforesaid, the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has directed not to
consider Assets of the accused during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to
consider the expenditure of the accused. Therefore, I
have considered Rs.4,56,44400 as an expenditure
of the accused.
(LIV). ERB5: Repayment of loan and interest of
Rs.8,96,46900 in respect of account No.IPL/49/02
of Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd.,:
(a). According to the prosecution, the documents
collected from Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd., prove
212 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
that on 21062002 husband of the accused had
borrowed loan of Rs.7,00,00000, from that day till
19122005 he had repaid an amount of
Rs.8,96,46900 towards principal and interest, hence
this amount is considered as an expenditure of the
accused. In order to prove its contention of loan and
repayment of loan, the prosecution has got marked
Ex.P103. The accused has not denied the case of the
prosecution that her husband had borrowed loan of
Rs.7,00,00000. But the learned counsel for the
accused has argued that the accused had repaid the
loan amount of Rs.6,76,73000, but the Investigating
Officer has taken the wrong calculation holding he
paid Rs.8,96,46900, hence difference amount of
Rs.2,19,73900 needs to be excluded. Bearing in
mind the contention of prosecution and arguments of
the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone
through Ex.P103 and after calculation, I came to
know that from 07.08.2002 to 19.12.2005 husband
of the accused repaid loan amount and interest of
213 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.6,76,73000 (page No.1671 and 1672 of Ex.P103)
and there is no evidence that he paid Rs.8,96,46900
to Janatha Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hence, I have
considered an amount of Rs.6,76,73000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LV). ERB6: Repayment of loan and interest of
Rs.10,47,20000 in respect of account No.APML/521
and new account No.13209000566 of Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank:
(a). Case of the prosecution is that on the basis
of the documents collected from Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank, the investigating officer came to
know that on 03.01.2009 the accused had borrowed
loan of Rs.15,00,00000 and from 29.07.2009 to
17.12.2011 she has repaid an amount of
Rs.10,47,20000 towards principal and interest,
hence this amount is considered as an expenditure
of the accused. In order to prove its contention
regarding loan and repayment of loan, the
prosecution has got marked Ex.P109 and got
examined PW2 and PW9 who collected the
214 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
documents and who filed the final report
respectively. But the learned counsel for the accused
has argued that the repayment loan and interest
between 29.07.2009 to 17.12.2011 was Rs.9,31,200
00 but not Rs.10,47,20000. He further argued that
as the accused was not a public servant from
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, amount of Rs.4,36,200
00, which was paid during that period has to be
excluded from the expenditure of the accused and
Rs.4,95,00000 be considered as an expenditure of
the accused. As aforesaid, the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has directed not to consider Assets of the
accused during the period 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the
expenditure of the accused. After careful perusal the
document and the calculation made as per the
statement of account, which is marked at Ex.P109
(page No.1633 to 1645), I came to know that
Rs.9,89,20000 payment has been made by the
accused towards the loan and the interest and not
215 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.10,47,20000 as contended by the prosecution.
Therefore, I have considered Rs.9,89,20000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LVI). ERB7: Repayment of loan and interest of
Rs.10,13,57300 in respect of account
No.13209012551 of Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena
Bank:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the documents
obtained from Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
state that, on 11.09.2003 husband of the accused
had taken loan of Rs.5,75,00000 and from
11.09.2003 to 14.03.2012 he has repaid an amount
of Rs.10,13,57300 towards principal and interest,
hence the investigating officer has rightly considered
Rs.10,13,57300 as an expenditure of the accused.
In order to prove its contention the prosecution has
got marked Ex.P109 (page No.1601 to 1618) and got
examined PW2 and PW9. But the learned counsel
for the accused has argued that the accused was not
a public servant from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010 and
hence an amount of Rs.2,35,28000 which was paid
216 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
during that period has to be excluded from the
expenditure of the accused. As aforesaid, the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider
Assets of the accused during the period 24.11.2006
to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to consider the
expenditure of the accused. Regarding repayment of
loan and payment of interest, I have gone through
the documents produced by the prosecution. As per
the statement of account, loan account was closed on
14.03.2012 and the Investigating Officer has
considered payment made even after the closure of
the check period i.e., after 17.12.2011. Therefore the
amount paid after the check period has to be
excluded. After calculation, I came to know that after
the check period husband of the accused made
payment of Rs.72,60000 till 14.03.2012, but the
Investigating Officer has included this amount in the
expenses of the accused. Therefore, by considering
these aspects and after deducting Rs.72,60000, I
217 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
have taken Rs.9,40,97300 towards expenditure of
the accused.
(LVII). ERB8: Repayment of loan and interest of
Rs.5,99,13200 in respect of account
No.13209012562 of Kalpatharu Grameena Bank:
(a). The contents of the final report state that, as
per the documents obtained from Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank, on 07.02.2005 husband of the
accused had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000 and
from 07.02.2005 to 24.09.2011 he has repaid an
amount of Rs.5,99,13200 towards principal and
interest, hence the investigating officer has
considered this amount as an expenditure of the
accused. In order to prove its contention regarding
loan and repayment of loan, the prosecution has got
marked Ex.P109 (page No.1619 to 1628). The
accused has admitted repayment of loan and interest
of Rs.5,99,13200, but she has contended that as
she was not a public servant from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010, an amount of Rs.2,35,28000, which
was paid during that period has to be excluded from
218 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the expenditure. As aforesaid, the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider
Assets of the accused earned during the period
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, but not directed to not to
consider the expenditure of the accused. Therefore,
by considering admission of the accused and
contents of documents, I have considered an amount
of Rs.5,99,13200 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LVIII). ERB:9: Repayment of gold loan of
Rs.6,14,92700 to Muthoot Finance:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
payment of loan and interest of Rs.6,14,92700 as an
expenditure of the accused. Contention of the
prosecution is that on 18.02.2010, husband of the
accused had borrowed gold loan of Rs.5,50,00000
and on 29.10.2011 he has repaid Rs.6,14,92700
towards principal and interest. The accused has not
disputed repayment of loan and interest of
Rs.6,14,92700 towards gold loan borrowed from
Muthoot finance. Apart from that Ex.P127 also
219 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
states that on 29.10.2011 i.e., within check period
husband of the accused has made payment of
Rs.6,14,92700. Therefore, I have considered
Rs.6,14,92700 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LIX). EIT1: Payment of Income Tax of
Rs.17,53500:
(a). On the basis of copies of ITRs collected from the
Department of Income Tax, the investigating officer has
considered Rs.17,53500 as expenditure of the accused.
Case of the prosecution is that the accused has paid
total amount of Rs.17,53500 towards income tax for
assessment year 200203 to 201112. The accused has
admitted payment of income tax of Rs.17,53500 for the
assessment years 200203 to 201112 by her husband.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.17,53500 is considered as
an expenditure of the accused.
(LX). EIT2: payment of Income Tax of
Rs.1,05,33900:
(a). On the basis of income tax returns filed by
husband of the accused during the Assessment
220 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
years 200203 to 201011, the investigating officer
has reported in the final report that husband of the
accused has paid Income Tax of Rs.1,05,33900.
But, the learned counsel for the accused has argued
that the Investigating Officer has committed mistake
in calculating the Taxes paid by husband of the
accused, hence, the Court has to consider the
expenditure of the accused at Rs.77,90000 towards
Income Tax. The prosecution has got marked the
Income Tax Returns as per Ex.P140. A perusal of
these documents which are marked at Ex.P140,
makes it clear that in the Assessment year 200203
husband of the accused has paid Income Tax of
Rs.4,98300, in the Assessment year 200304 he
paid Income Tax of Rs.10,37600, in the Assessment
year 200405 he paid Income Tax of Rs.18,76100, in
the Assessment year 200506 he paid Income Tax of
Rs.37,89000, in the Assessment year 200607 he
paid Income Tax of Rs.3,27900, in the Assessment
year 200708 he paid Income Tax of Rs.4,94000, in
221 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the Assessment year 201011 he paid Income Tax of
Rs.2,61000 under PAN No.AFVPR2145D. The
Income Tax Returns of the Assessment year 200809
and 200910 state that husband of the accused has
not paid any Income Tax. Thus, the total Income Tax
paid in the Assessment year 200203 to 201011 was
Rs.82,83900, therefore, this amount is considered
as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXI). Domestic Expenditure:
(a). The Investigating Officer has taken domestic
expenditure of the accused and her family members
during the check period at Rs.8,47,53500. The
Investigating Officer has considered this domestic
expenditure on the basis of report of the Joint
Director, Statistics, Karnataka Lokayukta. The
learned public prosecutor has argued that the
prosecution has got marked report of the Joint
Director as per Ex.P129, which has not been
disputed by the accused, after considering the status
of the accused, the Joint Director has assessed
222 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
domestic expenditure of the accused at Rs.8,47,535
00, hence same may be considered as an
expenditure of the accused. Admittedly, the
prosecution has not got examined the Joint Director
of Statistics who has given Report as per Ex.P129.
Except marking of Ex.P129 through PW9, he has
not deposed anything about the contents of Ex.P
129. Regarding consideration of domestic expenses,
the learned counsel for the accused has relied o a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
AIR 1964 SC 464 (Sajjan Singh v/s State of Punjab.
In this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on facts
has held that:
‘The total receipts by the appellant from his
known sources of income thus appears to be
about Rs. 1,03,000/. If nothing out of this had
to be spent for maintaining himself and his
family during all these years from 1922 to 1952
there might have been ground for saying that
the assets in the appellant’s possession,
through himself or through his son (Rs.
1,20,000/) were not disproportionate to his
known sources of income. One cannot however
live on nothing; and however frugally the
appellant may have lived it appears to us clear
that at least Rs. 100/ per month must have
223 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015been his average expenses throughout these
yearstaking the years of high prices and low
prices together. These expenses therefore cut a
big slice of over Rs. 36,000/ from what he
received. The assets of Rs. 1,20,000/ have
therefore to be compared with a net income of
Rs. 67,000/. They are clearly disproportionate
indeed highly disproportionate. Mr. Lall
stressed the fact that the legislature had not
chosen to indicate what proportion would be
considered disproportionate and he argued on
that basis that the Court should take a liberal
view of the excess of the assets over the
receipts from the known sources of income.
There is some force in this argument. But taking
the most liberal view, we do not think it is
possible for any reasonable man to say that
assets to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/ is
anything but disproportionate to a net income of
Rs. 1,03,000/ out of which at least Rs.
36,000/ must have been spent in living
expenses’.
(b). In the case on hand, the learned counsel for
the accused has not disputed the contents of Ex.P
129. There is no suggestion to PW9 about the
contents of EX.P129. Further, even in her evidence
the accused has not deposed anything about her
Domestic Expenses. The learned counsel for the
accused has suggested PW9 that in Ex.P129 it was
mentioned that during 200709 accused has spent
224 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Rs.1,95,91100 and in that period accused was not a
public servant. PW9 has admitted this suggestion
and except this suggestion the learned counsel has
not suggested that the contents of Ex.P129 are
wrong or values are inflated. Therefore, there is no
reason to discard the contents of Ex.P129.
(c). Admittedly, the Joint Director of Statistics of
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, has submitted the
report as per Ex.P129. A perusal of this document
shows that he has mentioned the domestic
expenditure of the accused and his family members
from 25.11.1996 to 16.03.2012. According to him,
the domestic expenditure of the accused and his
family members from the period 25.11.1996 to
16.03.2012 was Rs.8,47,53500. The learned counsel
for the accused has taken same defence that the
accused was not a public servant during 200709
and hence, the expenditure made during the years
2007 to 2009 i.e., Rs.1,95,91100 should be excluded
from Rs.8,47,53500. At the cost of repetition, again I
225 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
would like to mention here that the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka has directed not to consider the
assets of the accused in that period, but not
expenditure and income. Therefore, the amount
spent for domestic purposes during the years 2007 to
2009 has to be taken into consideration.
(d). It is to be noted that, the check period is from
25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, but the Joint Director has
calculated the domestic expenditure up to
16.03.2012. Therefore, the expenditure said to be
made after 17.12.2011 has to be excluded. In Ex.P
129 it is specifically mentioned that the expenditure
for the period from 01.01.2012 to 16.03.2012 was
Rs.20,04800. Therefore, by excluding the
expenditure considered for the period which is after
the check period, I have considered the domestic
expenditure from 25.11.1996 to December 2011 and
hold that domestic expenditure of the accused and
her family members is Rs.8,27,48700.
226 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LXII). EP1: Expenditure of Rs.46,50000 made
for maintenance of Labrador dog:
(a). On the basis of the Report given by PW7, the
Investigating Officer has taken this amount towards
expenditure made for purchase of a Labrador dog
and its maintenance. The prosecution has also got
examined retired Dean of Animal Husbandry Medical
College as PW7, who got marked his Report as per
Ex.P77. As per the contents of Ex.P77, cost of
Labrador dog was Rs.6,00000 to Rs.8,00000, its
feeding cost was Rs.36,50000 at Rs.5000 per day,
cost of vaccination was Rs.1,60000 and other
medical expenses was Rs.50000. In his chief
examination, PW7 has deposed that he has assessed
cost of the dog and cost of maintenance
approximately at Rs.44,60000. The learned counsel
for the accused has argued that it is not the case of
the prosecution that dog has been purchased, hence
cost of the dog of Rs.8,00000 needs to be excluded.
He further argued that age of the dog as on the last
227 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
day of the check period i.e., 17.12.2011 was 3 years,
prior to 22.04.2010 accused was not a public
servant, on this ground also cost of the dog has to be
excluded. He further argued that as age of the dog is
considered as 3 years, maintenance cost of 2 years
has to be excluded as the accused was not a public
servant, therefore an amount of Rs.33,73300 has to
be excluded from Rs.46,50000.
(b). In his cross examination, PW7 has admitted
that the Investigating Officer has not submitted a
certificate to show that said dog was a Labrador. It is
to be noted that the accused has not disputed breed
of the dog. If the dog was not of Labrador breed, it is
for the accused to say what was the breed of his dog.
In the entire arguments and cross examination of
PW7, the accused has not stated the breed of his
dog. PW7 has admitted that, without seeing the dog
he could not assess the cost of maintenance. But,
PW7 has stated that on the basis of the letter of the
Investigating Officer he has assessed the cost of
228 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
maintenance. The accused has not contended that
feeding cost of the dog was not Rs.5000 per day and
further cost of vaccination and other medical
expenses have also not been disputed by the
accused. If the accused has disputed feeding cost,
cost of vaccination and medical expenses, which is
mentioned in Ex.P77, she should have given
evidence contrary to the contents of Ex.P77 or at
least she should have stated so in her evidence.
Though the accused has contended that it is not the
case of the prosecution that accused has purchased
the dog, in view of admission that she was having two
dogs, she had to say how said Labrador dog came to
her possession. But except some suggestions to PW
7, nothing is on record to disbelieve evidence of PW7
and contents of Ex.P77. Hence, by considering cost
of the dog at the lowest price, which is mentioned in
Ex.P77 i.e., Rs.6,00000, I hold that accused has
spent Rs.44,60000 towards cost and maintenance of
Labrador dog. Accordingly, I hold that the accused
229 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
had spent an amount of Rs.44,60000 towards cost
and maintenance of Labrador dog.
(LXIII). EP2: Expenditure of Rs.31,55000 made
for maintenance of Pug dog:
(a). On the basis of the Report given by PW7, the
Investigating Officer has taken this amount towards
expenditure said to be made for purchase of a Pug
dog and its maintenance. The prosecution has also
got examined retired Dean of Animal Husbandry
Medical College as PW7, who got marked his Report
as per Ex.P77. As per the contents of Ex.P77, cost
of a Pug dog was Rs.8,00000 to Rs.12,00000,
feeding cost was Rs,18,25000 at Rs.5000 per day,
cost of vaccination was Rs.80000 and other medical
expenses was Rs.50000. In his chief examination,
PW7 has deposed that he has assessed cost of the
dog and cost of maintenance approximately at
Rs.31,55000. Learned counsel for the accused has
argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that
dog has been purchased, hence cost of the dog of
230 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.12,00000 needs to be excluded. He further
argued that age of the dog as on the last day of the
check period i.e., 17.12.2011 was 3 years, prior to
22.04.2010 accused was not a public servant, on this
ground also cost of the dog at the rate of Rs.12,000
00 has to be excluded. He further argued that as age
of the dog is considered as 3 years, maintenance cost
of 2 years has to be excluded as the accused was not
a public servant, therefore an amount of Rs.25,033
00 has to be excluded from Rs.31,55000.
(b). In his cross examination, PW7 has admitted
that the Investigating Officer has not submitted a
certificate to show that said dog was a Pug dog. If the
dog was not Pug dog, it is for the accused to say what
was the breed of her dog. In the entire arguments of
learned counsel for the accused and cross
examination of PW7, the accused has not mentioned
the breed of her dog. PW7 has admitted that,
without seeing the dog he could not assess the cost of
maintenance. But, PW7 has stated that on the basis
231 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of a letter of the Investigating Officer he has assessed
the cost of maintenance. The accused has not
contended that the feeding cost of the dog was not
Rs.5000 per day and further cost of Vaccination and
other medical expenses have also not been disputed
by the accused. If the accused has disputed feeding
cost, vaccination and medical expenses which is
mentioned in Ex.P77, she should have given
evidence contrary to the contents of Ex.P77 or at
least she should have stated so in her evidence.
Though the accused has contended that it is not the
case of the prosecution that accused has purchased
the dog, the accused had to say how said pug dog
came to her possession. But except some
suggestions, nothing is on record to disbelieve
evidence of PW7 and contents of Ex.P77. Hence, by
considering cost of the dog at the lowest price, which
is mentioned in Ex.P77 i.e., Rs.8,00000, I hold that
accused has spent Rs.27,55000 towards cost of the
dog and its maintenance. Accordingly, I hold that the
232 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused has spent an amount of Rs.27,55000 for
purchase and maintenance of a pug dog.
(LXIV). EGC1: Payment of Rs.39,75972 for
purchase of gas under consumer No.620503 during
the check period:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
M/s. Krishan Gas Agency, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru,
the Investigating Officer has considered an amount
of Rs.39,75972 as an expenditure of the accused.
Arguments of the prosecution is that to take gas
connection accused has deposited an amount of
Rs.80000 under the consumer No.620503, she has
purchased cooking gas from 200203 to 201112 and
total amount paid for this purpose was Rs.39,759
72. He further argued that expenditure of this
amount has been shown by the document itself,
therefore this amount has to be considered as an
expenditure of the accused. The learned counsel for
the accused has argued that, accused was not a
public servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, as
per the Report accused had spent Rs.3,68200
233 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
during 200708, Rs.4,17600 in 200809 and
Rs.4,98000 during 200910, therefore an amount of
Rs.12,83800 has to be excluded. In order to prove
its contention the prosecution has got marked the
Report given by M/s. Krishan Gas Agency as per
Ex.P123 through PW9. In this regard the accused
has not given any evidence. As discussed above, for
the purpose of calculating expenditure, this Court
has also considered the period from 24.11.2006 to
22.04.2010. The accused has not disputed about
taking of gas connection, depositing an amount of
Rs.800 to take gas connection and also payment of
the amount as mentioned in Ex.P123. Therefore, I
have accepted the case of the prosecution that the
accused spent a sum of Rs.39,75900 to take gas
connection and to purchase cooking gas.
(LXV). EGC2: Payment of Rs.52,71519 for
purchase of gas under consumer No.611571 during
the check period:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
M/s. Krishan Gas Agency, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru,
234 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015the Investigating Officer has considered an amount of
Rs.52,71519 as an expenditure of the accused.
Arguments of the prosecution is that to take gas
connection, the accused had made a deposited of
Rs.1,90000 under consumer No.611571, she had
purchased gas from 199697 to 201112 and total
amount paid for this purpose is Rs.52,715.00. The
learned counsel for the accused has argued that,
accused was not a public servant between
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, as per the Report accused
had spent Rs.3,68200 during the period 200708,
Rs.4,17600 during the period 200809, Rs.4,98000
in 200910, therefore an amount of Rs.12,83800 has
to be excluded. In order to prove its contention the
prosecution has got marked the Report given by M/s.
Krishan Gas Agency as per Ex.P124 through PW9.
In this regard the accused has not given any
evidence. As aforesaid, for the purpose of considering
the expenditure this Court has considered the period
from 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010. Further, the accused
235 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
has not disputed about the gas connection taken by
her and payment of the amount as mentioned in
Ex.P124. Therefore, I have accepted the case of the
prosecution that the accused spent a sum of
Rs.52,715.00 to take gas connection and to
purchase cooking gas.
(LXVI). EP1 & 2: Payment of Passport fee of
Rs.3,50000:
(a). The investigating officer has considered
Rs.3,50000 as an expenditure of the accused on the
basis of the documents traced out in the house of the
accused. The contention of the prosecution is that
the accused has paid Rs.2,50000 to get her passport
bearing No.9304348 and her husband has paid
Rs.1,00000 to get his passport No.8503959. In order
to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has
got examined PW2 and PW9 and got marked the
documents as per Ex.P78. The accused has
admitted payment of Rs.3,50000 to get passports.
236 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Hence, an amount of Rs.3,50000 is considered as
an expenditure of the accused.
(LXVII). EE1: Educational expenses of son of the
accused by name Sharath Kumar:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the
Investigating Officer has obtained documents from
schools and colleges pertaining to education of son of
the accused by name Sri. Sharath Kumar, as per
those documents the accused has spent an amount
of Rs.96,92100, hence same is considered as an
expenditure of the accused. The accused has not
disputed payment of an amount of Rs.96,92100 for
education expenses of her son, but contended that,
as the accused was not a public servant between
24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, total amount of
Rs.32,46100 paid during the years 200708, 2008
09, and 2009 has to be excluded. For the reasons
given above, I have rejected contention of the accused
and considered the school records which are marked
at Ex.P73, Ex.P79 and Ex.P116 and hold that the
237 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused had spent a sum of Rs.96,92100 towards
education expenses of her son by name Sri. Sharath
Kumar.
(LXVIII). EE2 Educational expenses of son of
the accused by name Bharath Kumar:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, the
Investigating Officer has collected documents from
schools and colleges pertaining to education of son of
the accused by name Sri. Bharath Kumar, as per
those documents accused has spent an amount of
Rs.4,99,31000, hence same was considered as an
expenses of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked the documents as per
Ex.P89, Ex.P112, Ex.P113 and Ex.P125. The
accused has not disputed the documents as well as
the payment of an amount of Rs.4,99,31000 for
education expenses of her son, but she has
contended that, as the accused was not a public
servant between 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010, the
amount of Rs.5,76000 paid during 200708, an
238 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
amount of Rs.11,90000 paid on 07.06.2008 and an
amount of Rs.11,75000 paid on 07.05.2009, which
amounts to Rs.29,41000 has to be excluded. As
stated above, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
has directed not to consider assets of the accused
earned during the period 24.11.2006 to 22.04.2010
if she was not a public servant, but not directed not
to consider expenses of the accused made during
that period. Hence, I have considered the school
records which are got marked at Ex.P89, Ex.P112,
Ex.P113 and Ex.P125 and hold that the accused
did spend a sum of Rs.4,99,31000 towards
education expenses of her son by name Sri. Bharath
Kumar.
(LXIX). ERC1: Entertainment expenses of
Rs.1,50000 made by husband of the accused in
Satellite Club:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered an
amount Rs.1,50000 as an expenses of the accused
on the basis of a letter given by the Satellite Club.
The accused has not disputed that he was having
239 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
membership in Satellite Club and paid an amount of
Rs.1,50000 as an entertainment fee. But, contention
of the accused is that these expenses has already
been considered by the Investigating Officer under
visible and nonvariable expenditure, therefore if this
amount is considered again, it amounts to
duplication. In order to prove estimated family visible
and nonvariable expenditure of the accused, the
prosecution has got marked Ex.P129. As per this
document, under invisible and nonvariable
expenditure, the Deputy Director of Statistics has
considered the expenses under the head
‘entertainment’ which includes ‘club fees’. In that
event if the entertainment fee of Rs.1,50000 is
considered under this head, definitely it amounts to
duplication. Hence, I have not considered this
amount as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXX). ERS1: payment of rent for a shop taken
on rent for Fabrication business:
(a). Case of the prosecution is that to do
fabrication business, husband of the accused has
240 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
taken a shop on rent, which belonged to one Smt.
Padmavathi and he was paying rent of Rs.1,40000
per month. The total rent paid for 5 years is
Rs.84,00000, hence this amount is taken as
expenditure of the accused. The prosecution has got
marked copy of the rent agreement dated 06.04.2000
as Ex.P139(b). The accused has not disputed the
rent agreement entered into between her husband
and one Smt. Padmavathi and also payment of rent
Rs.84,00000 during the check period. Therefore,
without going further discussion, I have considered
Rs.84,00000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXI). EO1: Payment of premium for health
insurance:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
Branch Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance
Co., Ltd, Bengaluru, the investigating officer has
considered Rs.4,45900 as an expenditure of the
accused. The accused has not disputed payment of
Rs.4,45900 to take Health insurance during the
241 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
check period and also not objected to consider this
amount as an expenditure of the accused. Therefore,
I have considered Rs.4,45900 as an expenditure of
the accused.
(LXXII). EO2: House repair expenditure of
Rs.17,13,59400:
(a). The Investigating Officer has considered
expenses said to be made for house repair as an
expenditure of the accused. The learned public
prosecutor has argued that in the Income Tax
Returns, the accused herself has shown house repair
expenses, therefore considering admissions of the
accused, the repair expenses has to be considered as
an expenditure of the accused. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the accused has argued that the
amount shown under the Income Tax Act, is based on
Sec.24(A) of Income Tax Act, as per this Section
whether the Assessee has incurred any expenditure
towards the house repair or not, he is entitled for
exemption up to 30% and he is not required to pay
242 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
any tax on it. Admittedly, the accused has sought for
exemption of Income Tax on 30% of rental income in
Income Tax Returns. The accused herself is examined
before the Court as DW7, who deposed that she has
not spent the amount at the rate of 30% towards
repair of her house. Husband of the accused has also
been examined as DW6, who has also deposed in the
line of DW7. But, argument of the learned public
prosecutor is that when the accused herself has
admitted repair expenses, same has to be considered
as an expenditure of the accused. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision of
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Cr.A. No.53/2017 (State Reptd., by the Public
Prosecutor v/s K. Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani and
another). In this decision, on the point of repair
expenses the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held
that ‘the prosecution ought to have collected evidence
how the said money spent on repair’. The learned
counsel for the accused has argued that apart from
243 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Income Tax Returns, the prosecution has not
produced any documentary evidence to prove the
expenses made towards repair of rented houses. The
prosecution has got marked copies of Income Tax
Returns from Assessment Year 200203 to the
Assessment Year 201011 as per Ex.P140. In view of
rival contentions, I have gone through the Section 24
of Income Tax Act. Section 24(A) of Income Tax Act
allows a standard deductions for rental income from
house property. The standard deduction is a flat
amount deduction from taxable income, allowing tax
payers to reduce their taxable income without
submitting any proof or disclosure. This Section
contains provisions of the standard deductions
available to the tax payers who earn income from
rented house property. This Section also provides a
standard deduction of 30% on the net annual value of
the rented house property. The purpose of standard
deduction under Section 24(A) is to provide tax relief
on the property upkeep and maintenance that may
244 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
arise during the period. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the assessee need not spent 30% of rented
income for house repair to claim exemption under
Section 24(A) of Income Tax Act. Further, except ITRs,
there is no material on record to substantiate that the
accused had spent an amount of Rs.17,13,59400 for
repair of rented houses. Hence, I have not considered
this amount as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXIII). EMISC1: Medical expenditure of
Rs.12,40100:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
Fortis Hospital, the Investigating Officer has
considered an amount of Rs.12,40100 as an
expenditure of the accused. The learned counsel for
the accused has argued that, that amount was
already covered under visible and nonvariable
expenditures, therefore this amount cannot be
considered. A perusal of Ex.P129 shows that while
calculating the visible/variable list of expenditure,
the Deputy Director of Statistics has considered
245 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
institutional medical expenses. A perusal of this
document shows that the medical expenses
considered under Ex.P129 is in respect of general
medicine. But, Ex.P95 shows that the accused had
taken treatment in Fortis Hospital for S.paratypha A
infection. The accused has not disputed the case of
the prosecution that she had taken treatment in
Fortis Hospital. The accused has also not disputed
the contents of Ex.P95 and total bill for this
treatment was Rs.26,00100. As per the contents of
Ex.P95, an amount of Rs.13,60000 was paid by
Star Health Insurance Company. Therefore,
excluding Rs.13,60000, remaining amount of
Rs.12,40100 which was paid on 03.09.2011 is
taken as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXIV). EMISC2: An amount of Rs.10,86000
paid to purchase a Refrigerator:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the
search in the house of the accused, the Investigating
Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure
246 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of the accused. The prosecution has got marked the
bill for having purchased a Refrigerator as per Ex.P
141(a). The accused has not disputed purchase of a
Refrigerator for Rs.10,86000 during the check
period. But, he has contended that in the mahazar
the Investigating Officer has already considered value
of the Refrigerator and stabilizer at Rs.8,50000, if
this amount is considered once again it amounts to
duplication, therefore an amount of Rs.8,50000
should be excluded from Rs.10,86000. In the
background of argument of the learned counsel for
the accused, I have gone through the mahazar which
is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.4 of Ex.P49, the
Investigating Officer has considered value of a fridge
and a stabilizer at Rs.8,50000. This Court has
already considered this amount of Rs.8,50000 under
the head ‘Asset’ i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P
141(a) the accused had purchased a Refrigerator and
a stabilizer for Rs.10,86000. Therefore, as argued by
learned counsel for the accused Rs.8,50000 has to
247 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
be deducted from Rs.10,86000, which comes to
Rs.2,36000. Thus, I have considered an amount of
Rs.2,36000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXV). EMISC3: Purchase of tread mill for
Rs.29,90000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the
search in the house of the accused, the Investigating
Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure
of the accused. The accused has not disputed
purchase of the a treadmill for Rs.29,90000 during
the check period. But, learned counsel for the
accused has contended that in the mahazar the
Investigating Officer has already considered value of
the tread mill as Rs.10,00000, if this amount is
considered once again it amounts to duplication,
therefore an amount of Rs.10,00000 should be
excluded from Rs.29,90000. In the background of
argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I
have gone through the mahazar which is marked at
Ex.P49. At page No.12 of Ex.P49, the Investigating
248 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Officer has considered value of the tread mill as
Rs.10,00000. This Court has already considered this
Rs.10,00000 under the head ‘Asset’ i.e., house hold
articles. As per Ex.P141(b), the accused had
purchased the tread mill for Rs.29,90000. Therefore,
as argued by learned counsel for the accused
Rs.10,00000 has to be deducted from Rs.29,90000,
which comes to Rs.19,90000. Accordingly, I have
considered an amount of Rs.19,90000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LXXVI). EMISC4: Purchase of a water purifier
for Rs.14,95000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the
search in the house of the accused, the Investigating
Officer has considered this amount as an
expenditure of the accused. The accused has not
disputed purchase of the a water purifier for
Rs.14,95000 during the check period. But, he has
contended that in the mahazar the Investigating
Officer has already considered value of the water
249 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
purifier as Rs.5,00000, if this amount is considered
once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an
amount of Rs.5,00000 should be excluded from
Rs.14,95000. He further argued that, as the water
purifier was purchased on 29.06.2007 when the
accused was not a public servant, entire amount of
Rs.14,95000 has to be excluded. In the background
of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, I
have gone through the mahazar which is marked at
Ex.P49. At page No.7 of Ex.P49, the Investigating
Officer has considered value of the water purifier as
Rs.5,00000. This Court has already considered this
Rs.5,00000 under the head ‘Asset’ i.e., house hold
articles. As per Ex.P141(c) the accused had
purchased the water purifier for Rs.14,95000.
Therefore, as argued by learned counsel for the
accused, Rs.5,00000 has to be deducted from
Rs.14,95000, which comes to Rs.9,95000.
Further, as discussed above, this court has not
excluded the period between 24.11.2006 to
250 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
22.04.2010 for consideration of expenses. Therefore,
I have considered an amount of Rs.9,95000 as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LXXVII). EMISC5: Purchase of Automatic Water
Level Controller and cable:
(a). On the basis of an invoice traced out during
search in the house of accused, the investigating
officer has considered Rs.3,70000 as an expenditure
of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has
argued that the accused has spent an amount of
Rs.3,70000 to purchase an Automatic Water Level
Controller, therefore this amount has to be
considered as an expenditure of the accused. In this
regard the prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P
141(d). The accused has not disputed purchase of an
Automatic Water Level Controller during the check
period and cable, she has also not objected to
consider Rs.3,70000 as an expenses of the accused.
Hence, Rs.3,70000 is consider as an expenditure of
the accused.
251 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LXXVIII). EMISC6: Purchase of washing machine
for Rs.12,99000:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during search
in the house of the accused, the Investigating Officer
has considered this amount as an expenditure of the
accused. The bills collected from the house of the
accused is pertaining to purchase of washing
machine. The accused has not disputed purchase of
the a washing machine for Rs.12,99000 during the
check period. But, he has contended that in the
mahazar the Investigating Officer has already
considered value of the washing machine as
Rs.6,00000, if this amount is considered once again
it amounts to duplication, therefore an amount of
Rs.6,00000 should be excluded from Rs.12,99000.
In the background of argument of the learned
counsel for the accused, I have gone through the
mahazar which is marked at Ex.P49. At page No.8 of
Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has considered
value of the washing machine as Rs.6,00000. This
Court has already considered Rs.6,00000 under the
252 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
head ‘Asset’ i.e., house hold articles. As per Ex.P
141(e), the accused had purchased a washing
machine for Rs.12,99000. Therefore, as argued by
learned counsel for the accused Rs.6,00000 has to
be deducted from Rs.12,99000, which comes to
Rs.6,99000. Thus, I have considered an amount of
Rs.6,99000 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXIX). EMISC7: Purchase of a watch of Tissat
Company for Rs.10,99000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out
during the house search, the investigating officer has
considered Rs.10,99000 as an expenditure of the
accused. In this regard the prosecution has got
marked a bill as Ex.P141(f). The accused has not
disputed purchase of a Watch during the check
period and also not objected to consider Rs.10,990
00 as an expenses of the accused. Hence, Rs.10,990
00 is consider as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXX). EMISC8: Purchase of a Nokia Mobile for
Rs.4,30000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out
during search in the house of accused, the
253 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
investigating officer has considered Rs.4,30000 as
an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(j). The
accused has not disputed purchase of a Nokia Mobile
Phone during the check period and also not objected
to consider Rs.4,30000 as an expenses of the
accused. Hence, Rs.4,30000 is consider as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXI). EMISC9: Payment of Rs.500000 to
purchase Bajaj Chetak vehicle:
(a). On the basis of a receipt traced out during
the house search mahazar, the investigating officer
has considered Rs.5,00000 as an expenditure of the
accused. The accused has not disputed payment of
Rs.5,00000 to S.K.S Motors to purchase a Bajaj
Chetak vehicle during the check period and also not
objected to consider Rs.5,00000 as an expenses of
the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got
marked a bill as Ex.P141(h). Hence, Rs.5,00000 is
consider as an expenditure of the accused.
254 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LXXXII). EMISC10: Purchase of Solar Water
heating systems for Rs.35,00000:
(a). On the basis of documents traced out during
the house search mahazar, the investigating officer
has considered Rs.35,00000 as an expenditure of the
accused. In this regard the prosecution has got
marked a bill as Ex.P141(i). The accused has not
disputed purchase of a solar water heater and other
related electric items and payment of Rs.35,00000
during the check period and also not objected to
consider Rs.35,00000 as an expenses of the accused.
Hence, Rs.35,00000 is considered as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXIII). EMISC11: Purchase of a simtel mobile
for Rs.13,00000:
(a). On the basis of a document traced out at the
time of conducting mahazar in the house of accused,
the investigating officer has considered Rs.13,00000
as an expenditure of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(j).
255 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
The accused has not disputed purchase of simtel
mobile and payment of Rs.13,00000 during the
check period and also she has not objected to
consider Rs.13,00000 as an expenses of the
accused. Hence, Rs.13,00000 is considered as an
expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXIV). EMISC12: Purchase of a Samsung
mobile for Rs.14,50000:
(a). On the basis of a Tax invoice traced out
during the house search mahazar, the investigating
officer has considered Rs.14,50000 as an
expenditure of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked a tax invoice as Ex.P
141(k). The accused has not disputed purchase of
samsung mobile and payment of Rs.14,50000
during the check period and also not objected to
consider Rs.14,50000 as an expenses of the
accused. Hence, Rs.14,50000 is considered as an
expenditure of the accused.
256 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LXXXV). EMISC13: Purchase of a DVD player
for Rs.24,22300:
(a). On the basis of a bill traced out during the
search in the house of the accused, the Investigating
Officer has considered this amount as an expenditure
of the accused. In this regard the prosecution has got
marked a bill as Ex.P141(l). The accused has not
disputed purchase of the a DVD player for
Rs.24,22300 during the check period. But, he has
contended that in the mahazar the Investigating
Officer has already considered value of the DVD
player as Rs.5,00000, if this amount is considered
once again it amounts to duplication, therefore an
amount of Rs.5,00000 should be excluded from
Rs.24,22300. In the background of argument of the
learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through
the mahazar, which is marked at Ex.P49. At page
No.7 of Ex.P49, the Investigating Officer has
considered value of the DVD player as Rs.5,00000.
This Court has already considered this Rs.5,00000
257 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
under the head ‘Asset’ i.e., house hold articles. As per
Ex.P141(l) the accused had purchased the DVD
player for Rs.24,22300. Therefore, as argued by the
learned counsel for the accused, Rs.5,00000 has to
be deducted from Rs.24,22300, which comes to
Rs.19,22300. Thus, I have considered an amount of
Rs.19,22300 as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXVI). EMISC14: Purchase of a Solar Water
heater for Rs.19,00000:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out
during the house search mahazar, the investigating
officer has considered Rs.19,00000 as an
expenditure of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked a bill as Ex.P141(m).
The accused has not disputed purchase of a solar
water heater and payment of Rs.19,00000 during
the check period and also not objected to consider
Rs.19,00000 as an expenses of the accused. Hence,
Rs.19,00000 is considered as an expenditure of the
accused.
258 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(LXXXVII). EMISC15: Payment of lodging fee of
Rs.1,42500:
(a). On the basis of the documents traced out
during the house search mahazar, the investigating
officer has considered Rs.1,42500 as an expenditure
of the accused stating that husband of the accused
has paid this amount for staying in Travel in Hotel in
Dharwad. The accused has not disputed payment of
Rs.1,42500 for stay of her husband in a hotel
during the check period and also not objected to
consider Rs.1,42500 as an expenses of the accused.
In this regard the prosecution has also got marked a
bill as Ex.P142(a). Hence, Rs.1,42500 is
considered as an expenditure of the accused.
(LXXXVIII). EMISC16 & 17: payment of Rs.2000
00 as party fund:
(a). On the basis of the receipts traced out during
the house search mahazar, the investigating officer
has considered Rs.2,00000 as an expenditure of the
accused stating that the accused and her accused
have paid this amount towards party fund. In this
259 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
regard the prosecution has got marked a bills as
Ex.P141(n) and Ex.P141(o), which are in page
Nos.102 and 103 of file No.13. In this file there are
other 2 receipts at page No.104 and 105 dated
15.10.2001 of Rs.100000 each, which state payment
of Rs.100000 each to a party fund, but these
documents have not been considered by the
investigating officer and also not got marked by the
prosecution for the reasons known to it. The accused
has not disputed payment of Rs.2,00000 as a party
fund during the check period and also not objected to
consider Rs.2,00000 as an expenses of the accused.
Hence, Rs.2,00000 is considered as an expenditure
of the accused.
29. After perusal of documentary and oral evidence
of both sides and consideration of points urged at the
time of arguments, expenditure of the accused during
the check period as per the investigating officer,
according to the accused and as per the findings of the
Court is as follows:
260 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Expenditure as
Code Description of the Expenditure as Expenditure as
per the findings of
No. expenditure per IO per accused
the Court
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000 Rs.32,30000
1 Site No.63 & 64 of (2
& 3) of Nagarbhavi
Registration and
stamp duty towards
3 acres of land in
EASR
Sy.No.16, present Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100 Rs.23,24100
2
No.16/p7 of Menasi
Village,
Doddabhallapura
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500 Rs.31,91500
3 Site No.2/83/2 of
Nagarbhavi Village
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000 Rs.13,49000
4 Site No.47 of
Malagala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR
Site No.2 & 3 of Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000 Rs.82,12000
5
Nagarbhavi Village,
Mudalapalya
Registration and
stamp duty towards
2 acre 33 guntas at
EASR
Sy.No.16, present Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500 Rs.28,77500
6
No.16/p4 of Menasi
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR 3 acre at Sy.No.16,
Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500
7 present No.16/p4 of
Menasi Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR 3 acre at Sy.No.16,
Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500 Rs.30,43500
8 present No.16/p5 of
Menasi Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR Site No.1, 4th ‘B’
Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000 Rs.41,53000
9 Main Road,
Byraveshwara
Nagar, Nagarabhavi
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000 Rs.2,99,07000
10 Site No.78 of
Nagarabhavi
EASR Registration and Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500 Rs.14,58500
11 stamp duty towards
1 acre of land in
261 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Sy.No.50/p3,
Kannamangala
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty
towards1 acre of
EASR
land in Sy.No.50/p5, Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
12
Kannamangala
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
1 acre of land in
EASR
Sy.No.50/p4, Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
13
Kannamangala
Village,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.29,47100 Rs.00 Rs.29,47100
14 Sy.No.67,
Doddaballapura
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
15 Sy.No.464/1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
16 Sy.No.78/A1B1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
17 Sy.No.502/A of
Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
18 Sy.No.116/B of
kollegala
Registration and
EASR
stamp duty towards Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
19
Sy.No.88 of Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
20 Sy.No.116 of
Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.55000 Rs.00 Rs.55000
21 Sy.No.228/1 of
Kollegala
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.3,32,83500 Rs.00 Rs.3,32,83500
22 Sy.No.50/p2 of
Kannamangala
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR Site No.14, Ward
Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500 Rs.45,36500
23 No.38, Nagarabhavi
Main Road
262 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.9,53000 Rs.00 Rs.00
24 Site No.8 of
Nagarabhavi
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR
Assessment No.47, Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000 Rs.20,12000
25
Katha No.2875 of
Nagarabhavi Village
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500 Rs.14,61500
26 Sy.No.169 of
Kannamangala
Cost incurred
towards registration
EASR
and stamp duties to Rs.1,89000 Rs.00 Rs.00
27
gift deed executed by
father of the accused
Cost incurred
towards registration
EASR and stamp duties to
Rs.1,96000 Rs.00 Rs.00
28 gift deed executed by
grandmother of the
husband
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR
Sy.No.64/1, 64/2 Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000 Rs.73,66000
29
and 64/3 of
Ranganathapura
Registration and
stamp duty towards
EASR
Sy.No.10.46/3 and Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000 Rs.29,45000
30
46/4 of
Ranganathapura
Registration and
EASR stamp duty towards
Rs.32,02000 Rs.00 Rs.32,02000
31 site No.48 of
Malagala
Cost incurred
towards registration
EASR and stamp duties to
Rs.1,65000 Rs.00 Rs.00
32 gift deed executed by
grandmother of the
husband
Property tax paid
EAT1 towards Site No.78 Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100 Rs.60,05100
of Nagarabhavi
EAT2 Property tax paid Rs.14,14300 Rs.12,30000 Rs.12,30000
towards Assessment
No.47 of
Nagarabhavi
Property tax paid
towards No.7,
EAT3 Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900 Rs.36,74900
Nanjarasappa
Layout
Property tax paid
towards No.63 & 64
EAT4 Rs.96,08600 Rs.81,08600 Rs.96,08600
of Nagarabhavi
263 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Property tax paid
towards No.1233 of
EAT5 Rs.4,74600 Rs.00 Rs.00
Yashwanthapura
Hobli
Property tax paid
towards Site No.47
EAT6 Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300 Rs.1,02,72300
of Yashwanthapura
Hobli
Property tax paid
towards House List
EAT7 No.5 of Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400 Rs.2,63400
Rajarajeshwari
Nagar
BWSSB Charges
EWC1 paid towards No.3, Rs.31,76000 Rs.11,37200 Rs.31,76000
Byraweshwara Nagar
KPTCL charges for
EEC1 No.3 Byraweshwara Rs.10,64000 Rs.00 Rs.10,64000
Nagar
KPTCL charges paid
EEC2 towards No.3, Rs.83,95200 Rs.44,24100 Rs.82,33400
Byraweshwara Nagar
Plan sanction
charges paid
EAO1 Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300 Rs.4,34300
towards No.3,
Byraweshwara Nagar
Maintenance and
EMF1 fuel charges of Rs.11,39000 Rs.11,39000
Rs.11,89000
EMR1 vehicle No.KA41S Rs.50000 Rs.50000
5319
Insurance paid
EMI1 towards vehicle Rs.87200 Rs.87200 Rs.87200
No.KA41S5319
Maintenance of
vehicle No.KA:41
AV1 HM:5319 (Not Rs.42,12800 Rs.42,12800 Rs.40,75600
considered it under
the head Asset)
Payment made
towards mobile
ECM1 Rs.1,86,65400 Rs.1,16,28900 Rs.1,86,65400
charge of mobile
No.9880427055
Payment made
towards mobile
ECM2 Rs.40,36700 Rs.12,49900 Rs.40,36700
charge of airtel
mobile
ECT1 Payment made Rs.1,45,59700 Rs.1,16,84900 Rs.1,49,34700
towards landline
No.23217778
ERB1 Loan Repayment Rs.46,91,08800 Rs.34,53,18100 Rs.46,91,08800
ERB2 Loan Repayment Rs.2,80,22000 Rs.2,44,22000 Rs.2,52,60100
ERB3 Loan Repayment Rs.6,56,09300 Rs.2,44,07100 Rs.6,20,26500
ERB4 Loan Repayment Rs.4,56,44400 Rs.00 Rs.4,56,44400
ERB5 Loan Repayment Rs,8,96,46900 Rs,6,76,73000 Rs.6,76,73000
ERB6 Loan Repayment Rs.10,47,20000 Rs.4,95,00000 Rs.9,89,20000
ERB7 Loan Repayment Rs.10,13,57300 Rs.7,78,29300 Rs.9,40,97300
ERB8 Loan Repayment Rs.5,99,13200 Rs.3,63,85200 Rs.5,99,13200
264 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015ERB9 Loan Repayment Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700 Rs.6,14,92700
Payment of Income
EIT1 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500 Rs.17,53500
Tax by accused
Payment of Income
EIT2 Rs.1,05,33900 Rs.77,90000 Rs.82,83900
tax by Ravi Kumar
Domes Per Capita monthly
tic expenditure
Rs.8,47,53500 Rs.6,15,53900 Rs.8,27,48700
Expen
diture
Cost incurred for
EP1 Rs.46,50000 Rs.12,76700 Rs.44,60000
Labrador dog
Cost incurred for
EP2 Rs.31,55000 Rs.6,51700 Rs.27,55000
pug dog
Payment made
EGC1 towards cooking gas Rs.39,75900 Rs.23,92100 Rs.39,75900
No.620503
Payment made
EGC2 towards cooking gas Rs.52,71500 Rs.39,88300 Rs.52,71500
No.611571
EP1 & Payment incurred
Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000 Rs.3,50000
EP2 towards passport
Educational
EE1 expenses of Sharath Rs.96,92100 Rs.64,46000 Rs.96,92100
Kumar
Educational
EE2 expenses of Bharath Rs.4,99,31000 Rs.4,69,90000 Rs.4,99,31000
Kumar
Payment made
ERC1 towards satellite Rs.1,50000 Rs.00 Rs.00
club
Rent paid towards
running
ERS1 Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000 Rs.84,00000
Byraveshwara
Fabrication works
Payment made
EO1 towards Insurance Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900 Rs.4,45900
policy
House expenditure
EO2 Rs.17,13,59400 Rs.00 Rs.00
shown in returns
Medical Expenditure
EMISC of accused at Fortis
Rs.12,40100 Rs.00 Rs.12,40100
1 HospitalEMISC Value of the Rs.10,86000 Rs.8,50000 Rs.2,36000
2 purchase bill found
in the house in
respect of FridgeValue of the
EMISC purchase bill found
in the house in Rs.29,90000 Rs.10,00000 Rs.19,90000
3
respect of TreadmillValue of the
purchase bill found
EMISC in the house in
Rs.14,95000 Rs.00 Rs.9,95000
4 respect of Mineral
Water Purifier
265 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC in the house in
Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000 Rs.3,70000
5 respect of Kent
Grand Water level
controller
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.12,99000 Rs.6,00000 Rs.6,99000
6
respect of Kenstar
washing machine
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000 Rs.10,99000
7
respect of Tessat
Watch
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000 Rs.4,30000
8
respect of Nokia
Mobile
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.5,00000 Rs.5,00000 Rs.500000
9
respect of Bajaj
Chethak
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000 Rs.35,00000
10
respect of Solar
system
Value of the
EMISC purchase bill found
Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000 Rs.13,00000
11 in the house in
respect of mobile
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000 Rs.14,50000
12
respect of Samsung
Mobile
Value of the
purchase bill found
EMISC
in the house in Rs.24,22300 Rs.5,00000 Rs.19,22300
13
respect of Sony DVD
Music System
EMISC Value of the Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000 Rs.19,00000
14 purchase bill found
in the house in
respect of Solar
Water Heater
Expenses incurred
EMISC
towards Travelin Rs.1,42500 Rs.1,42500 Rs.142500
15
Hotel
EMISC Payment made
16 & towards congress Rs.2,00000 Rs.2,00000 Rs.200000
17 party fundTotal Rs.1,61,00,35100 Rs.98,83,30400 Rs.1,39,09,89200
266 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015C. INCOME OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS FAMILY
MEMBERS:
30. The Investigating officer has considered income
of the accused and his family members under 39 heads.
The accused has not disputed the income under the
head Rental income, agriculture income, loan income,
interest income, LIC policy income, income from sale of
properties except sale proceeds of property No.67 and
464/1 and no dispute about gold loan which are
considered by the investigating officer. As per the case of
prosecution, total income of the accused and her family
members during the check period is Rs.2,95,38,27567,
according to the accused her income during the check
period is Rs.3,46,78,27500. Income of the accused as
per the investigating officer and according to the accused
are as follows:
Code Income according
Sl. Income according
No. as Description of the Income investigating
No. the accused
per IO officer
1 IS1 Salary of the accused Rs.4,41,18200 Rs.4,81,18200
Rental income of accused and
2 IR1 Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.57,91,80500
her husband
Agricultural income from
3 IA1 Sy.No.67 of Ranganathapura Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500
Village
4 IBL1 Loan income from loan A/c. Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000
267 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
No.0424/721/266 of Syndicate
Bank
Loan income from loan A/c.
5 IBL2 No.061035711 of LIC Housing Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000
Finance
Loan income from loan A/c.
6 IBL3 No.13209012562 of Kaveri Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
Loan income from loan A/c.
7 IBL4 No.13209012551 of Kaveri Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
Loan income from loan A/c.
8 IBL5 No.13209000566 of Kaveri Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000
Kalpatharu Grameena Bank
Gold loan from Muthoot
9 IBL6 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000
Finance
Loan income from loan A/c.
10 IBL7 No.49 of Rajajinagar Co Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000
operative Bank
Loan income from loan A/c.
11 IBL8 No.IPL/49/02 of Janata Co Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
operative Bank
Interest income from A/c.
12 IIBL1 No.42421010090711 of Rs.22600 Rs.22600
Syndicate Bank
Interest income from A/c.
13 IIBL2 No.159015220429 of ICICI Rs.86600 Rs.86600
Bank9
Interest income from A/c.
14 IIBL3 No.014995 of Janata Co Rs.2,61400 Rs.2,61400
operative Bank
Interest income from A/c.
15 IIBL4 No.04282010101266 of Rs.44600 Rs.44600
Syndicate Bank
Interest income from A/c.
16 IIBL5 No.8401101027550 of Canara Rs.1,26900 Rs.1,26900
Bank
Interest income from A/c.
17 IIBL6 No.31665883104 of State Bank Rs.10400 Rs.10400
of India
Interest income from A/c.
18 IIBL7 No.563402010000577 of Union Rs.1,28200 Rs.1,28200
Bank of India
Interest income from A/c.
19 IIBL8 No.3812 of Kaveri Kalpatharu Rs.24600 Rs.24600
Bank
Interest income from A/c.
20 IIBL9 No.64074953326 of State Bank Rs.13000 Rs.13000
of Mysore
Interest income from A/c.
21 IIBL10 No.635 of Rajajinagar Co Rs.53900 Rs.53900
operative Bank
22 IPL1 Loan income from Rs.00 Rs.5,00,00000
268 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Krishnamurthy
Loan income from A.S.
23 IPL2 Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000
Manjunath
24 IPL3 Loan income from Karriappa Rs.00 Rs.4,00,00000
Income from fabrication
25 IB1 Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000
business
Matured LIC Policy
26 IIP1 Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000
No.10171647
Matured LIC Policy
27 IIP2 Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000
No.10167414
Matured LIC Policy
28 IIP3 Rs.84,24200 Rs.84,24200
No.615420571
Matured LIC Policy
29 IIP4 Rs.41,88700 Rs.41,88700
No.61540884
Matured LIC Policy
30 IIP5 Rs.41,94200 Rs.41,94200
No.615420723
Sale proceeds from property
31 ISA1 Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
No.55 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from property
32 ISA29 Rs.5,10,00000 Rs.5,10,00000
No.55 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from
ISA3 to
33 Sy.No.16/P4, P5, P6 and Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000
6
16/P7, of Menasi Village
Sale proceeds from property
34 ISA7 Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000
No.78
Sale proceeds from property
35 ISA8 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000
No.58 of Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds from Sy.No.10,
36 ISA9 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000
46/3 of Chikkadevarahalli
ISA10 Sale proceeds from Sy.No.67 of
37 Rs.00 Rs.30,00,00000
& 11 Ranganathapura
Sale proceeds from
38 ISA12 Sy.No.464/1 and others of Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000
Ekkadahalli,
39 IO1 Gold Loan Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000
Total Rs.2,95,38,27500 Rs.3,46,78,27500
31. Out of these 39 heads of income, the accused
has admitted 33 heads of income considered by the
investigating officer and she has disputed 6 heads of
income. Therefore, I proceed to discuss heads of income
one by one:
269 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(I). IS1: Salary income of the accused
(Rs.4,41,18200):
(a). On the basis of salary details collected from
office of the BBMP, the Investigating Officer has
considered total salary income of the accused during
the check period at Rs.4,41,18200. Learned public
prosecutor has argued that during the check period
the total salary of the accused was Rs.4,81,18200,
Rs.20,00000 was deducted from her salary towards
party fund and Kannada Sahitya Parishath, hence
the investigating officer has deducted Rs.20,00000
while considering her total salary and he has rightly
considered salary income of the accused at
Rs.4,41,18200. Learned counsel for the accused has
argued that as per the Report received by the
Investigating Officer, after deduction the accused in
all has received salary of Rs.4,81,18200, but the
Investigating Officer has committed a mistake in
deducting additional sum of Rs.20,00000 on the
head of ‘party fund’ and ‘Kannada Sahitya Parishath’,
270 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015therefore the salary income of the accused has to be
taken as Rs.4,81,18200. After I gone through the
oral evidence, I came to know that though the
investigating officer has deducted Rs.20,00000 from
her salary while considering her salary income, the
accused/ DW7 has not deposed anything about her
salary income. In order to prove salary income of the
accused, the prosecution has got marked the details
of salary of the accused given by the Council
Secretary of BBMP as Ex.P75. Except marking of this
document neither PW2 nor PW9, who are the
Investigating Officers have deposed anything about
salary details of the accused.
(b). Bearing in mind the rival arguments of both
sides, I have gone through Ex.P75. As per this
document from November1996 to February2012
accused has drawn salary of Rs.4,77,26500. In the
Final Report, though the Investigating Officer has
explained stating that during the check period net
salary income of the accused was Rs.4,56,94500, he
271 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015has considered Rs.4,41,18200. After careful perusal
of Ex.P75, I came to know that as per the contents of
this document, total salary income from November
1996 to February2012 was Rs.4,77,26500. Final
Report states that the Investigating Officer has
deducted Rs.20,00000 from total salary of the
accused by considering deduction towards ‘party
fund’ and ‘donation to Karnataka Sahitya Parishath’.
But it is to be noted that the contents of Ex.P75
clearly state that after deducting the amount towards
‘party fund’ and ‘Kannada Sahitya Parishath’, salary
income of the accused comes to Rs.4,77,26500,
because only after deductions salary was credited to
the accused. Therefore, total salary drawn by the
accused from November1996 to December2012 was
Rs.4,77,26500. Admittedly, the check period starts
from 25.11.1996 to 17.12.2011, therefore salary
drawn by the accused in the month of January 2012
and February 2012 has to be excluded from her total
salary. As per Ex.P75, in the month of January2012
272 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
and February2012 the accused has drawn total
salary of Rs.17,00000, if this amount is deducted,
then the total salary income of the accused during the
check period comes to Rs.4,60,26500. Therefore, I
considered Rs.4,60,26500 as salary income of the
accused.
(II). IR1: Rental income of Rs.57,91,80500:
(a). The investigating officer has submitted that
as per the Income Tax Returns filed during 200203
to 201112, the accused has declared her rental
income and as per these per the Income Tax Returns,
she got total rental income of Rs.20,47,13000. He
further submitted that in the Income Tax Returns,
which were filed by husband of the accused, he has
declared his rental income from 200203 to 201112
and as per these Income Tax Returns, his total rental
income was Rs.37,44,67500. On the basis of
declaration made in the Income Tax Returns and rent
agreements, the investigating officer has taken
Rs.57,91,80500 as income of the accused.
273 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(b). The evidence given by DW6 (husband of the
accused) on rental income is as follows: In 2003 he
has purchased site No.63 and 64 in Nagarabhavi and
constructed a house spending rupees 14 lakhs to 15
lakhs. He purchased site No.47 in Malagala and
constructed 12 rented houses in the year 2004
borrowing loan from LIC and out of his own business
income, from the rented houses of Malagala he was
getting Rs.50,00000 to Rs.60,00000 per annum.
Site No.78 situated in Nagarabhavi is in the name of
his wife wherein sheet roofed houses have been built
by spending Rs.3,00,00000. Site No.8 of
Nagarabhavi was gifted to him by his grand mother,
he built houses and given them for rent. House list
No.5 of Mallathalli was gifted to his wife by her father
and site No.7 of Nagarabhavi was gifted to him by his
grand mother.
(c). In her chief examination, DW7 (the accused)
has deposed that there was an house in Malagala,
every year she was declaring her rental income in
274 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Income Tax Returns. Under the head ‘assets of
accused’, this court has accepted the case of the
accused regarding purchase of sites and also
execution of gift deeds in favour of the accused and
her husband. Admittedly, on the basis of the
declaration made by the accused and her husband in
Income Tax Returns, the investigating officer has
considered total rental income at Rs.57,91,80500.
Though the learned public prosecutor has cross
examined DW6 regarding material used for
construction of the houses, he has not cross
examined him on rental income except asking that
who was the tenant in the year 2006 in the house
constructed in site No.78 of Nagarabhavi. The
learned public prosecutor has argued that DW6 was
unable to name his tenant, if really he has rented out
his houses definitely he would have name one of his
tenant, it shows that there was no rental income to
the accused or her husband. No doubt, DW6 was
unable to mention name a tenant of the year 2006.
275 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
DW6 has given his evidence in the year 2022 and
the learned public prosecutor has asked about the
name of a person who was the tenant in the 2006. It
cannot be expected from DW6 to name a tenant after
lapse of more than 15 years, that too when he was a
owner of number of rented houses. Though the
learned public prosecutor has not crossexamined
DW6 and DW7 on rental income, he has argued
that though the investigating officer has considered
rental income, accused has to substantiate it. In this
regard the learned public prosecutor has relied on a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 263 (State of
Karnataka v/s J. Jayalalitha and others). In this
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on discussing
on evidentiary value of Income Tax Returns has held
that ‘…..To reiterate, even if such returns and others
are admissible, the probative value would depend on
the nature of the information furnished, the findings
recorded in the orders having a bearing on the charge
276 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
levelled. In my view of the matter, however, such
returns and others would not ipso facto either
conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at
best be piece of evidence which have to be evaluated
along with the other materials on record……’
(d). By relying on this judgment, the learned
public prosecutor has argued that the income tax
returns are not conclusive proof, the accused has to
prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Keeping in
mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I
have gone through the documentary evidence
available on record. The documents such as sale
deeds executed by the accused and her husband and
also the sale deeds in which they have purchased the
properties and which have been produced by the
prosecution themselves state about the houses
owned by the accused and her husband. As per the
sale deed dated 28.05.2004 (Ex.P131), the sale deed
dated 28.05.2004 (Ex.P36) and the sale deed dated
12.12.2011 (Ex.P37), the accused has residential
277 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
premises, RCC building and AC sheet roofed houses
on different dates. The sale deed dated 19.05.2005
(Ex.P132) states that husband of the accused had
sold 2 AC sheet roofed houses. Further, the
documents which are in Ex.P110 state that BBMP
has approved the building plan for construction of a
building in Site No.47 of Malagala, Bengaluru. Apart
from these documentary evidence, the investigating
officer himself got assessed the cost construction of
building constructed in Site Nos.2 and 3, Kalasa
Nilaya, Bhairaveswara Nagara, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru, in Site No.7, Nanjarasappa Extension,
Bengaluru, in Site No.47, Kalasa Nilaya, Malagala,
Bengaluru and in Site No.78, Nagarabhavi Extension.
As per the report of PW5 [Ex.P108, Ex.P108 (a) to
Ex.P108(i)], in Site Nos.2 and 3 of Nagarabhavi,
there are ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor
which are constructed during the year 200203, Site
No.7, Nanjarasappa Extension is having ground floor,
1st floor and 2nd floor and 3rd floor constructed in the
278 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
year 2002, the Site No.47, which is situated at
Malagala is having ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd
floor, 3rd floor and 4th floor which were constructed in
the year 200506 and in Site No.78, Nagarabhavi
Extension, ground floor and 1st floor are constructed
in the year 200506. Further, there is no dispute
from the side of the prosecution regarding execution
of gift deed in favour of the accused and her
husband. The contents gift deed dated 02.03.2007
state that father of the accused had gifted a site with
a AC sheet roofed house to the accused (Ex.P104).
The contents gift deed dated 30.11.2010 state that
grandmother of husband of the accused had gifted a
site with a AC sheet roofed house in favour of
husband of the accused (Ex.P106). The Gift deed
dated 29.05.2010 state that grand mother of husband
of the accused had gifted a site with one house in
favour of husband of the accused (Ex.P130). All these
documents are sufficient to hold that the accused and
her husband were having number of houses for rent.
279 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(e). The learned public prosecutor has argued that
gift deeds cannot be accepted to be genuine unless
relationship of donor with donee and the occasion is
proved. At the cost of repetition, again I would like to
mention here that nowhere in the crossexamination of
DW6 and DW7, the learned prosecution has disputed
the sale deeds and gift deeds. Further, when the
prosecution has consider the properties mentioned in
said sale deeds and gift deeds to calculate assets of the
accused, it cannot dispute the genuineness of said sale
deeds and gift deeds while considering them for income
purpose. Apart from that the sale deeds and gift deeds
were executed by grand mother of husband of the
accused and father of the accused before the date of
raid and registering the case against the accused.
These sale deeds and gift deeds are enough to hold that
the accused and her husband were having houses for
rent. When a person is having number of houses in
Bangalore, it cannot be expected from him to keep all
these houses for her own use.
280 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(f). A perusal of the mahazar dated 16.03.2012
make it clear that during raid in the house of the
accused, the investigating officer has seized sale
deeds, gift deeds, rent agreements and other
documents in the presence of panch witnesses and
they were noted in the mahazar. The prosecution
itself has got marked those sale deeds, gift deeds and
rent agreements. The prosecution has got marked
bank account statements and several rent
agreements, which were seized in the house of the
accused (Ex.P10). The Investigating officer has
seized original and copies of rental agreements,
which state that husband of the accused rented out
his shops and residential premises. A perusal of
these documents are enough to hold that the accused
and her husband was having rental income during
the check period.
(g). Further, as aforesaid, when the prosecution
has consider the properties of above mentioned sale
deeds and gift deeds to assess the ‘assets’ of the
281 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused, it cannot object to consider those sale deeds
and gift deeds in order to assess rental income.
Except the suggestion to DW6 that he has no rental
income, nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW6
and DW7 to disbelieve the rent agreements which
are seized from the house of the accused and also the
contentions of the accused about rental income.
Further, it is settled principles of law that the
accused need not prove his contention beyond
reasonable doubt and he can discharge by
establishing his case by preponderance of probability.
h). The accused and her husband have declared
their rental income in Income Tax Returns (Ex.P87
and Ex.P140). On the basis of these Income Tax
Returns, the investigating officer has considered of
Rs.57,91,80500 towards rental income of the
accused and her husband. The learned public
prosecutor has also argued that total rental income
as per ITRs is Rs.31,47,13000, that may be
considered. I have gone through the copies of ITRs
282 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
collected by the investigating officer from the
department of Income Tax. The investigating officer
has collected the ITRs of husband of the accused of
Assessment years 200203, 200304, 200405, 2005
06, 200607, 200708, 200809, 20092010 and
201011. The investigating officer has also collected
the ITRs of the accused of Assessment years, 2002
03. 200304, 200405, 200506, 200607, 200708,
200809, 20092010, 201011, 201112. The copies
of ITRs submitted by the husband of accused are
marked as Ex.P140 and the copies of ITRs
submitted by the accused are marked as Ex.P87.
After thorough calculation of declaration of rental
income, I hold that husband of the accused has
declared his total rental income at Rs.25,28,85000
from the Assessment year 200203 to 201011, the
accused has declared her total rental income at
Rs.15,03,59900 from 200304 to 201112.
Therefore, I have considered rental income of accused
and her family member at Rs.40,32,44900.
283 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(III). I.A.No. 1: Agriculture income of Rs. 6,75,53500:
(a). In her schedule statement submitted to the
investigating officer, the accused has stated that
Sy.No. 67 of Raghunathapura village, Sy.No. 168,
169, 170, 171 and 172 of Kannamangala village,
Sy.No. 10, 46/3, 46/4 of Maralavadi village and
Sy.No. 16 of Menasi village are in the name of her
husband and from 199899 to 201112 he got
agriculture income of Rs.15,31,40000. But as per
the income tax returns filed for the Assessment years
from 200203 to 201112 her agriculture income was
Rs. 6,75,53500, hence, the investigating officer has
considered Rs. 6,75,53500 as an agriculture income
of the accused. In order to substantiate its
contention, the prosecution has also got marked
copies of ITRs of husband of the accused as per
Ex.P140, which have not been disputed by the
accused. The prosecution itself has got marked the
sale deed and RTC extracts as per Ex.P4, which
says that husband of the accused was having 3 acres
284 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of agriculture land, in which pomegranate was
growing. As per the contents of Ex.P12, husband of
the accused has purchased 3 acres of agriculture
land on 07.03.2005. As per the contents of Ex.P14,
husband of the accused has purchased 3 acres of
agriculture land on 04.03.2005. As per Ex.P15
husband of the accused has purchased 2 acres 33
guntas of agriculture land on 20.03.2006. As per
Ex.P17 husband of the accused has purchased 3
acres of agriculture land on 22.03.2006. It is to be
noted that the investigating officer has also consider
purchase of these lands towards assets of the
accused. All these documents are sufficient to say
that accused was having agriculture land. Though
the accused has stated in her schedule statement
that her husband has got agriculture income of
Rs.15,31,40000, she has not disputed before the
court the agriculture income considered by the
investigating officer and not objected to consider
Rs.6,75,53500 towards her income. Hence,
285 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.6,75,53500 is considered as an agriculture
income of the accused.
(IV). IBL1: Loan Rs. 30,00,00000 borrowed by
husband of the accused from Syndicate Bank:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
Manager of Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram, the
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs.30,00,00000 towards income of the accused. The
accused has not disputed the amount of loan
borrowed from Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram
during the check period. At para No.134 of his
examination in chief, PW9 has got marked the
documents of account statement of the accused as
per Ex.P62 and he deposed that those documents
are with respect to the loan of Rs.30,00,00000. But,
after perusal of the documents in Ex.P62, I came to
know that those documents have not say anything
about the loan of Rs.30,00,00000. I have gone
through the Book No.3(2) and came to know that the
account statement of the Syndicate Bank which
286 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
belonged to the accused and which is marked as
Ex.P43 shows the loan transaction of Rs.30,00,000
00 during the check period. Hence, Rs.30,00,000
00 is considered as loan income of the accused.
(V). IBL2: Loan income of Rs. 9,60,00000 borrowed
from LIC Housing Finance Limited:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected
from Manager of LIC Housing Finance Limited, the
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs. 9,60,00000 towards income of the accused. In
this regard PW9 has got marked the documents as
per Ex.P90, which shows that husband of the
accused has borrowed the loan. The accused has not
disputed the amount of loan borrowed from LIC
Housing Finance Limited during the check period.
The documents in Ex.P90 makes it clear that the
accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,60,00000 from
LIC Housing Finance Limited during the check
287 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
period. Hence, Rs.9,60,00000 is considered as
income of the accused.
(VI). IBL3: Loan of Rs. 4,00,00000 borrowed from
Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan A/c No.
13209012562:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank, the
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs.4,00,00000 towards income of the accused. The
accused has not disputed the amount of loan
borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank
during the check period. In this regard, PW9 has got
marked loan transaction documents as per Ex.P
109, which shows that the accused had borrowed
the loan. Neither the prosecution nor the accused
have objected to consider this amount as loan
income of the accused. By considering contents of
Ex.P109, Rs. 4,00,00000 is taken as income of the
accused.
288 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(VII). IBL4: Loan of Rs. 5,75,00000 borrowed from
Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan A/c No.
13209012551:
(a). PW2 has collected the documents from
Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank
regarding loan, on the basis of these document the
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs.5,75,00000 towards income of the accused. The
prosecution has got marked the documents
pertaining to this loan transaction which are at page
No.1649 to 1652 of Ex.P109. The accused has not
disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Kaveri
Kalpataru Grameena Bank during the check period.
Neither the prosecution nor the accused have
objected to consider this amount as loan income of
the accused. Hence, Rs.5,75,00000 is considered as
income of the accused.
(VIII). IBL5: Loan of Rs.15,00,00000 borrowed
from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank under Loan
A/c No. 13209000566:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected from
Manager of Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank, the
289 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs.15,00,00000 towards income of the accused.
PW9 has got marked the account statement of the
accused as per Ex.P109 (the documents in Page
Nos.1633 to 1645). The documents which are at page
Nos.1633 to 1645 show that the accused had
borrowed mortgage loan of Rs.15,00,00000. The
accused has not disputed the amount of loan
borrowed from Kaveri Kalpataru Grameena Bank
during the check period. Further, neither the
prosecution nor the accused have objected to
consider this amount as loan income of the accused.
Hence, Rs.15,00,00000 is considered as income of
the accused.
(IX). IBL6: Gold loan income of Rs.3,45,00000
borrowed from Muthoot Finance:
(a). On the basis of the documents collected
from Muthoot Finance Limited, the investigating
officer has considered loan income of Rs. 3,45,000
290 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
00 as an income of the accused. The accused has not
disputed the amount of loan borrowed from Muthoot
Finance during the check period. Ex.P91, which has
not been disputed by either of the parties proves that
husband of the accused had borrowed gold loan of
Rs.3,45,00000. Hence, Rs.3,45,00000 is
considered as income of the accused.
(X). IBL7: Loan of Rs. 9,70,00000 borrowed
from The Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained
from Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank, the
investigating officer has considered loan income of
Rs. 9,70,00000 towards income of the accused.
Ex.P57, which has not been disputed by either of
them proves that on 03.04.2010, husband of the
accused had borrowed loan of Rs.9,70,00000 from
Rajajinagara CoOperative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru.
Hence, Rs. 9,70,00000 is considered as income of
the accused.
291 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XI). IBL8: Loan of Rs.7,00,00000 borrowed
from Janatha CoOperative Bank Limited:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained from
Manager of Janatha CoOperative Bank Limited,
Bengaluru, the investigating officer has considered
loan income of Rs. 7,00,00000 towards income of
the accused. The accused has not disputed the
amount of loan borrowed from Janatha CoOperative
Bank Limited during the check period. Apart from
that Ex.P103 has also proves that loan amount of
Rs.3,00,00000 was credited to the husband of the
accused on 07.08.2002 and loan of Rs.4,00,000 was
credited on 13.12.2002. Hence, Rs.7,00,00000 is
considered as income of the accused.
(XII). IIBL1 to 10: Total interest amount of
Rs.7,72200 credited to the various accounts of the
accused, her husband and her son:
(a). On the basis of the statements of account
obtained from Managers of Syndicate Bank, ICICI
Bank, Janatha Seva CoOperative Bank Limited,
292 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Canara Bank, State Bank of India, Union Bank of
India, Kaveri Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, State
Bank of Mysore and Rajajinagara CoOperative
Bank, the investigating officer has considered Rs.
10,42200 towards income of the accused. The
accused has not disputed the credit of interest
amount of Rs.10,42200 to various accounts of
members of her family and to consider this amount
as an income of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has also got marked the documents at
Ex.P38, Ex.P43, Ex.P60, Ex.P84, Ex.P88, Ex.P
98, Ex.P133. By considering the documentary
evidence and admission of the accused, I have
considered Rs.7,72200 as an income of the
accused.
(XIII). IPL1: Loan of Rs.5,00,00000 said to be
borrowed by the husband of the accused from one
Krishnamurthy:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
stated that on 20.12.2008 her husband had
293 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,00000 from one
Krishnamurthy, but the Investigating Officer has not
considered this amount as income of the accused,
because husband of the accused has not declared
this amount in his Income Tax Returns, he has not
received this amount through cheque and the
agreement entered into between husband of the
accused and lender was not registered. The learned
public prosecutor has relied on decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka which arose between Mr.
E.D. Prasad v/s State of Karnataka through
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Mysore in Crl.A.
No.996/2011. I have gone through this judgment, in
which the Hon’ble High Court has held that ‘…When
it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused is
alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to
his income, the burden lies on him to show that
whatever the income earned by him, as revealed in
the investigation is earned by his own income legally
294 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
earned’. I have applied the principles of this decision
to the case on hand as these principles applicable to
the facts of the present case. Further argument of
the learned public prosecutor is that as husband of
the accused has not declared loan of Rs.5,00,00000
said to be borrowed from one Krishnamurthy and as
this agreement was entered into between them in
order to inflate income of the accused, the
Investigating Officer has rightly not considered this
amount as an income of the accused. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the accused has
argued that the agreement has been got marked by
the accused as Ex.D3, the accused has declared
this amount in her Schedule statement, which is
submitted to the Investigating Officer, the
Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence
that he has not enquired said Krishnamurthy,
therefore the loan amount of Rs.5,00,00000 is liable
to be taken as loan income of the accused and her
family members.
295 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(b). The accused has got examined her husband
as DW6, who deposed that Sri. Krishnamurthy was
known to him, for his necessities he had borrowed
loan of Rs.5,00,00000 from him in the year 2009, in
this regard they have entered into an agreement and
he had repaid said amount in the last month of
2012. In order to substantiate her contention, the
accused has also got examined son of said
Krishnamurthy as DW2. In his chief examination
DW2 has deposed that husband of the accused
known to his father, there was a loan transaction
between his father and husband of the accused,
husband of the accused had borrowed hand loan of
Rs.5,00,00000 from his father, in this regard there
was an agreement and he could identify signature of
his father. There is no dispute that father of DW2 by
name Krishnamurthy is dead, in this regard accused
has also got marked death certificate of said
Krishnamurthy as Ex.D2 through DW2. In his
cross examination, DW2 has stated that his father
296 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
was collecting 2% interest. Argument of the learned
public prosecutor is that there is no condition in the
agreement to pay 2% interest, therefore, this
document cannot be believed. The Investigating
Officer has not considered Ex.D3 for the reasons
that loan amount was not declared in ITR, loan was
not paid through cheques, ExD.3 is not registered
and this document was created after raid. But only
on the ground that loan was not declared in ITR and
not paid the loan amount through cheques, it cannot
be said that there was no loan transaction. If any
irregularities in declaring ITR, the Income tax
Department would take action against him. As per
Ex.D3 loan transaction has taken place on
20.12.2008, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011 and
raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it
cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of
the case against the accused and raid, this
agreement was entered into between husband of the
accused and one Krishnamurthy. In his cross
297 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
examination, DW2 has denied suggestion of the
learned public prosecutor that there was no
transaction between his father and husband of the
accused. DW2 has also stated that his father has
not taken surety for the hand loan given to husband
of the accused. Thus, the evidence of DW2 and
contents of Ex.D2 probabalised the loan transaction
between husband of the accused and father of DW2
and nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW2 to
discard his evidence, hence I hold that the accused
has probabalised loan transaction of Rs.5,00,00000
between her husband and one Krishnamurthy.
(c). Apart from all these, the stamp paper of
Ex.D3 shows that it was purchased on 11.12.2008
i.e., long before registration of the case. The reasons
given by the prosecution for not considering Ex.D3
that agreement is insufficiently stamped, not
registered and rate of interest is not mentioned are
not acceptable to discard the contents of Ex.D3 and
298 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
evidence of DW2. Interestingly in his cross
examination, the Investigating Officer/ PW9 has
admitted that he has not enquired either
Krishnamurthy or husband of the accused regarding
loan transaction. When the accused in her Schedule
Statement itself has stated that her husband had
borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,00000 during the check
period, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to
record statement of the Lender and borrower. If the
Investigating Officer has enquired these two persons
the truth would have come out regarding the loan
transaction. Now, the materials placed on record are
sufficient to substantiate the loan transaction as
contended by the accused. Therefore, I considered
Rs.5,00,00000 as income of the accused.
(XIV). IPL2: Loan of Rs.6,00,00000 said to be
borrowed by the husband of the accused from one
A.S. Manjunath:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
stated that on 02.01.2009 her husband had
299 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 from one A.S.
Manjunath without interest, but the Investigating
Officer has not considered this amount as an income
of the accused, because husband of the accused has
not declared this amount in his Income Tax Returns,
he has not received this amount through cheque and
the agreement entered into between them was not
registered. Argument of the learned public prosecutor
is that as husband of the accused has not declared
loan of Rs.6,00,00000 said to be borrowed from one
A.S. Manjunath and as this agreement was entered
into between them in order to inflate income of the
accused, the Investigating Officer has rightly not
considered this amount as an income of the accused.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
accused has argued that the agreement has been got
marked by the accused as Ex.D5, the accused has
declared this amount in the Schedule submitted to
the Investigating Officer, Investigating Officer has
admitted in his evidence that he has not enquired the
300 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
A.S. Manjunath, therefore the loan amount of
Rs.6,00,00000 is liable to be taken as loan income of
the accused and her family members.
(b). The accused has got examined her husband
as DW6, who deposed that A.S. Manjunath was
known to him, in the year 2009 for his necessities he
had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000, in this regard
they have entered into an agreement and he had
repaid the said amount in the last month of 2012. In
order to substantiate her contention, the accused has
also got examined son of said A.S. Manjunath as DW
4. In his chief examination, DW4 has deposed that
husband of the accused was known to him, there
was a loan transaction between him and husband of
the accused, husband of the accused had borrowed
hand loan of Rs.6,00,00000 from him in the month
of January 2009, in this regard there was an
agreement and said agreement was with him, after he
cleared the loan he has handed over the agreement to
301 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
husband of the accused. DW4 has also identified the
agreement and same is marked is Ex.D5. In his
cross examination DW4 has stated that there was no
agreement about interest and no date was fixed for
repayment of loan. Argument of the learned public
prosecutor is that as per the evidence of DW4,
husband of the accused had borrowed loan to
purchase of immovable properties, but details of
immovable properties have not been mentioned in the
agreement, therefore this document cannot be
believed. The Investigating Officer has not considered
Ex.D5 for the reasons that loan amount was not
declared in ITR, loan was not paid through cheques,
Ex.D5 is not registered and this document was
created after raid. But only on the ground that loan
was not declared in ITR and not paid the loan
amount through cheques and agreement is not
registered, it cannot be said that there was no loan
transaction. If the agreement is not registered, the
lender could not be in a position to enforce the
302 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
agreement, but it cannot be said that there was no
loan transaction. If any irregularities in declaring ITR,
the Income tax Department would take action against
him. As per Ex.D5 loan transaction has taken place
on 02.01.2009, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011
and raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it
cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of
the case and raid, this agreement was entered into
between husband of the accused and DW4. In his
cross examination, DW4 has denied suggestion of
the learned public prosecutor that there was no
transaction between him and husband of the
accused. In view of evidence of DW4 and contents of
Ex.D5, which probabalised the loan transaction and
as nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW4 to
discard his evidence, I hold that the accused has
probabalised loan transaction of Rs.6,00,00000
between her husband and one A.S. Manjunath.
(c). Apart from all these, the stamp paper of
Ex.D.5 shows that it was purchased on 11.12.2008
303 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
i.e., long before registration of the case. The reasons
given by the prosecution for not considering Ex.D5
that agreement is insufficiently stamped, not
registered and rate of interest is not mentioned are
not acceptable to discard the contents of Ex.D5 and
evidence of DW4. Interestingly in his cross
examination, the Investigating Officer/ PW9 has
admitted that he has not enquired either A.S.
Manjunath or husband of the accused regarding loan
transaction. When the accused in her Schedule itself
has stated that her husband had borrowed loan of
Rs.6,00,00000 during the check period, it was the
duty of the Investigating Officer to record statement
of these persons. If the Investigating Officer has
enquired these two persons the truth would have
come out regarding the loan transaction. Now, the
materials placed on record are sufficient to
substantiate the loan transaction as contended by
the accused. Therefore, I considered Rs.6,00,00000
as income of the accused.
304 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XV). IPL3: Loan of Rs.4,00,00000 said to be
borrowed by the husband of the accused from one
Kariappa:
(a). As per the Final Report, the accused has
stated that on 02.01.2009 her husband had
borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000 from one Kariyappa
without interest, but the Investigating Officer has not
considered this amount as income of the accused,
because the accused had not declared this amount
in his Income Tax Returns, he has not received this
amount through cheque and the agreement entered
into between them was not registered. Argument of
the learned public prosecutor is that as husband of
the accused has not declared loan of Rs.4,00,00000
said to be borrowed from one Kariyappa in his ITR
and as the said agreement was executed in order to
inflate income of the accused, the Investigating
Officer has rightly not considered this amount as an
income of the accused. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the accused has argued that the
agreement has been got marked by the accused as
305 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Ex.D6, the accused has declared this amount in the
Schedule6 submitted to the Investigating Officer,
Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence
that he has not enquired said Kariyappa, therefore
the loan amount of Rs.4,00,00000 is liable to be
taken as loan income of the accused and her family
members.
(b). The accused has got examined her husband
as DW6, who deposed that Kariyappa was known to
him, in the year 2009 for his necessities he had
borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000, in this regard they
have entered into an agreement and he had repaid
the said amount in the last month of 2012. In order
to substantiate her contention, the accused has also
got examined said Kariyappa as DW5. In his chief
examination DW5 has deposed that husband of the
accused was his friend, on 02.01.2009 he paid loan
of Rs.4,00,00000, in order to purchase an
immovable property he had borrowed the amount, in
306 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
this regard he got executed an agreement on stamp
paper. DW5 has also identified the agreement and
same is marked is Ex.D6. In his cross examination,
DW5 stated that he did no know that to lend an
amount he had to obtain permission from his higher
authority, he did not informed his higher authorities
about his other sources of income, he has not
produced statement of his bank account, he did not
know which property was purchased by Ravikumar,
he did not declared about lending of loan in ITR.
Argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as
per evidence of DW5, husband of the accused had
borrowed loan to purchase an immovable property,
but details of immovable property have not been
mentioned in the agreement, therefore this document
cannot be believed. He further argued that DW5 has
not produced any amount of evidence to prove that
he was having sufficient source of income to lend
Rs.4,00,00000 to the husband of accused, therefore,
evidence of DW5 is not believable. The Investigating
307 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Officer has not considered Ex.D6 for the reasons
that loan amount was not declared in ITR, loan was
not paid through cheque, Ex.D.6 is not registered
and this document was created after raid.
Admittedly, DW5 was a government servant. But the
facts that DW5 has not declared payment of loan in
his ITR, he has not taken permission from his higher
authorities to lend loan, he had not paid loan
amount through cheque are not grounds to reject his
evidence given on sworn version. If any irregularities
in declaring in ITR, the Income tax Department
would take action against him and if he has lent a
loan without permission of his higher authorities, his
higher authorities would have conduct enquiry. As
per Ex.D6 loan transaction has taken place on
02.01.2009, FIR was registered on 17.12.2011 and
raid was conducted on 16.03.2012, therefore it
cannot be said that on anticipation of registration of
the case and raid on his home, this agreement was
entered into between husband of the accused and
308 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
DW5. In his cross examination DW5 has denied
suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that
there was no loan transaction between him and
husband of the accused. The evidence of DW5 and
contents of Ex.D6 probabalised the loan transaction
between the husband of the accused and DW5 and
nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW5 to discard
his evidence, hence I hold that the accused has
probabalised loan transaction of Rs.4,00,00000
between her husband and DW5.
(c). Interestingly, in his crossexamination, PW
9/the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has
not enquired either Kariyappa or husband of the
accused regarding loan transaction. When the
accused in her Schedule itself has stated that her
husband had borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,00000
during the check period, it was the duty of the
Investigating Officer to enquire the lender and the
borrower, if the Investigating Officer has enquired
309 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
these two persons the truth would have come out
regarding the loan transaction. Apart from all these,
stamp paper used to prepare Ex.D6 shows that it
was purchased on 11.12.2008 i.e., long back to the
dates of registration of the case and raid. Thus, the
reasons given by the prosecution for not considering
Ex.D6 are not acceptable to discard the contents of
Ex.D6 and evidence of DW5. Thus, the materials
placed on record are sufficient to probabalize the
loan transaction between Ravikumar and Kariyappa.
Therefore, I considered Rs.4,00,00000 as income of
the accused.
(XVI). IB1: Income from Fabrication Business:
(a). As per the case of prosecution, in her
schedule statement, accused has stated that her
husband was getting income of Rs.3,00,00000 per
annum from Fabrication business, but from 200203
to 200708, her husband has declared total income
of Rs.8,16,26000 from fabrication business, hence
310 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
the investigating officer has considered this amount
as an income of the accused. In this regard the
prosecution has got marked copies of ITRs of
husband of the accused from from Assessment year
200304 to 20102011. The accused has not
disputed the amount of income considered by the
investigating officer from Fabrication business. In
view of ITRs from Assessment year 200304 to 2010
2011 submitted by husband of the accused and
admission of the accused, I have considered
Rs.8,16,26000 as business income of the accused.
(XVII). IIP1 to IIP5: Maturity amount of LIC
policies:
(a). The investigating officer has considered LIC
policies and taken total amount of Rs.3,43,07100
from five LIC policies. As per Ex.P74 and Ex.P80,
some LIC policies of the accused and his family
members have matured and some of the LIC policies
were terminated by surrendering the policies. The
311 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused has admitted receipt of total income of
Rs.3,43,07100 from LIC policies. Hence,
Rs.3,43,07100 is considered as income of the
accused.
(XVIII). ISA1 and ISA2: Sale proceeds from
property No. 55:
(a). In order to ascertain income of the accused,
the investigating officer has considered sale of
property bearing Municipal No.55 and site
No.2/83/2 of Nagarabhavi village and taken sale
consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,00000 and
Rs.5,10,00000 as an income of the accused. The
certified copy of the sale deed which is in Ex.P131
says that on 28.05.2004 the accused sold the
property in Municipal No.55 for Rs.7,00,00000. The
certified copy of the sale deed which is in Ex.P36
states that on 28.05.2004 the accused has sold the
property in Municipal No.57/site No.2/83/2 of
Nagarabhavi village for Rs. 5,10,00000. There is no
312 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
dispute about sale of these properties for
Rs.7,00,00000 and Rs.5,10,00000. The accused
has not disputed this fact and not objected to
consider this amount as income of the accused.
Hence, Rs.12,10,00000 is considered as a income
of the accused.
(XIX). ISA3 to ISA6: Sale proceeds from Sy.No.
16/P4, 16/P5, 16/P6 and 16/P7:
(a). On the basis of Ex.P64, Ex.P65, Ex.P66
and Ex.P67, the investigating officer has taken sale
proceeds of Sy.Nos.16/P4, 16/P5, 16/P6 and 16/P7
of Menasi village as income of the accused. The
accused has admitted sale of these properties and
also sale consideration amount. The total
consideration amount of these properties is
Rs.23,65,00000. In view of the documentary
evidence and also admission of the accused, I have
considered Rs.23,65,00000 as a income of the
accused.
313 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(XX). ISA7: Sale proceeds from property No. 78:
(a). The investigating officer has taken into
consideration sale of House No.78 of Nagarabhavi
village and considered sale proceeds of
Rs.70,00,00000 as an income of the accused. The
accused has not disputed this fact and not objected
to consider this amount as income of the accused.
As per the copy sale deed dated 12.12.2011 (Ex.P
37), accused has sold a site bearing BDA site
No.78/khata No.58/78, which is situated in
Nagarabhavi Extension for Rs.70,00,00000. Hence,
Rs.70,00,00000 is considered as an income of the
accused.
(XXI). ISA8: Sale proceeds of properties bearing
Municipal No. 58 situated at Nagarabhavi main road:
(a). On the basis of the documents obtained
from office of the SubRegistrar of Nagarabhavi, the
investigating officer has taken into consideration sale
proceeds of sites and taken an amount of
314 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.16,50,00000 as an income of the accused. The
accused has not disputed this fact and not objected
to consider this amount as income of the accused.
Apart from that copy of the sale deed (Ex.P132)
states that on 19.05.2005, husband of the accused
has sold property bearing Municipal No.58 eastern
portion and Municipal No.58 western portion for
Rs.16,50,00000. Hence, Rs.16,50,00000 is
considered as a income of the accused.
(XXII). I.S.A9: Sale proceeds of properties in
Sy.Nos. 10, 46/3 and 46/4:
(a). By considering the documents obtained from
SubRegistrar of Kanakapura, the investigating
officer has considered sale proceeds of these
properties as an income of the accused. The copy of
sale deed dated 17.07.2003, which is marked as
Ex.P115 (page 894) states that husband of the
accused has sold properties in Sy. No.10, 46/3 and
46/4 of Chikkadevarahalli village for Rs.1,85,00000.
315 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
The accused has not disputed this fact and not
objected to consider this amount as income of the
accused. Accordingly, Rs.1,85,00000 is considered
as a income of the accused.
(XXIII). ISA10 and ISA11: Sale consideration of
Rs.30,00,00000 in respect of property bearing
Sy.No.67 of Raghunathapura:
(a). As per the final report, accused has stated
that on 15.05.2007 her husband had purchased 3
acres 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 and on
15.03.2012 he has sold 1 acre 17 guntas of land to
one C. Narayanaswamy and 2 acres of land to one T.
K. Kuriyakos for Rs.1,54,00,00000, out of total
consideration amount, T.K.Kuriyakos had paid
Rs.25,00,00000 through a cheque on 16.12.2011
and C. Narayanaswamy had paid Rs.5,00,00000
through a cheque on 16.11.2011, but investigating
officer has not considered these amounts under the
head income because, cheques were presented and
encashed after the cheque period ie., on 20.12.2012.
316 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
The learned public prosecutor has argued that the
cheques were encashed after the cheque period that
means the sale consideration amount was not with
the accused or husband of the accused during the
check period, therefore it cannot be considered as an
income of the accused.
(b). The sale deed dated 15.03.2012, which is in
Ex.P126 (page No.1794) says that husband of the
accused has sold 2 acres of land in Sy.No.67 of
Raghunathapura village to one Kuriakose for
Rs.90,00,00000. This document has also says that
out of total consideration amount, an amount of
Rs.25,00,00000 was paid through a cheque bearing
No.980621, dated 16.12.2011. Another sale deed
dated 15.03.2012, which is in Ex.P126 (page
No.1778) says that husband of the accused has sold
1 acre 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 of
Raghunathapura village to one C. Narayanaswamy
for Rs.64,00,00000. This document has also says
317 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
that out of total consideration amount, an amount of
Rs.5,00,00000 was paid through a cheque bearing
No008814, dated 16.11.2011.
(c). Arguments of the learned counsel for the
accused has argued is that though the cheques were
realized after the check period, as they were realized
and credited the amount to the account of accused,
the cheques amount has to be considered as it was
paid on the date of issuance of the cheques.
(d). In this regard the learned counsel for the
accused has relied on decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2013) 2 SCC 62, which arose
between Director of Income Tax v/s Raunaq
Education Foundation. In this decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has relied on decision in a case of
Ogale Glass Works Ltd., and applied the principles of
that decision to this decision. In case of Ogale Glass
Works Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with an
issue of consideration of date of payment of cheque
318 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
amount if it was realized afterwards. In the case of
Ogale Glass Works Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that:
“11….. When it is said that a payment by
negotiable instrument is a conditional
payment what is meant is that such
payment is subject to a condition
subsequent that if the negotiable
instrument is dishonoured on presentation
the creditor may consider it as waste paper
and resort to his original demand:
(Stedman v. Gooch³). It is said in Benjamin
on Sale, 8th Edn.,p. 788:
“The payment takes effect from the delivery
of the bill, but is defeated by the
happening of the condition i.e. non
payment at maturity”.
In Byles on Bills, 20th Edn., p. 23 the
position is summarised pithily as follows
‘A cheque, unless dishonoured, payment.’
To the same effect are the passages to be found in
Hart on Banking, 4th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 342. In Felix
Hadley & Co. v. Hadley, Byrne, J expressed the
same idea in the following passage in his judgment
at Ch pp. 68283:
‘… In this case I think what took
place amounted to a conditional payment
of the debt; the condition being that the
cheque or bill should be duly met or
honoured at the proper date. If that be
the true view, then I think the position is
319 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015exactly as if an agreement had been
expressly made that the bill or cheque
should operate as payment unless
defeated by dishonour or by not being
met; and I think that agreement is
implied from giving and taking the
cheques and bills in question.’The following observations of Lord Maugham in
Rhokana Corpn. Ltd. v. IRC are also apposite: (AC
p. 399)‘Apart from the express terms of Section
33 subsection (1), a similar conclusion
might be founded on the wellknown
common law rules as to the effect of the
sending of a cheque in payment of a debt,
and in the fact that though the payment
is subject to the condition subsequent
that the cheque must be met on
presentation, the date of payment, if the
cheque is duly met, is the date when the
cheque was posted.’In the case before us none of the cheques has
been dishonoured on presentation and payment
cannot, therefore, be said to have been defeated by
the happening of the condition subsequent, namely,
dishonour by nonpayment and that being so there
can be no question, therefore, that the assessee did
not receive payment by the receipt of the cheques.
The position, therefore, is that in one view of the
matter there was, in the circumstances of this case,
an implied agreement under which the cheques
were accepted unconditionally as payment and on
another view, even if the cheques were taken
conditionally, the cheques not having been
dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment
related back to the dates of the receipt of the
320 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
cheques and in law the dates of payments were the
dates of the delivery of the cheques.”
(e). I have gone through the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court and applied the principles to the
case on hand. By relying on this judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the
accused has argued that as the cheques were
encashed it should be considered as payment on the
date of issuance of the cheques. In the case on hand,
admittedly, the cheque of Rs.25,00,00000 was
issued by Sri. Kuriakose and Sri. Narayanaswamy in
favour of husband of the accused on 16.12.2011 ie.,
within the check period and they have realized on
20.12.2011 ie., after the check period. After reading
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I of the
humble opinion that the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court is on Income Tax Act and Negotiable
Instruments Act. The case on hand is about
Disproportionate assets and in Disproportionate
assets cases, the check period taken by the
investigating officer plays an important role and the
321 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Court has to decide the Assets, Expenditure and
Income of the accused and his family members
during the check period. At para No.21 of his chief
examination, DW1/ husband of the accused has
deposed that on 16.12.2011 he had entered into an
agreement with one Kuriakose for sale of 2 acres of
land for Rs.90,00,00000 and on that day said
Kuriakose had issued a cheque of Rs.25,00,00000.
At para No.22 of his chief examination, DW6 further
deposed that on 16.11.2011 he had entered into an
agreement with one Narayanaswamy for sale of
property for Rs.64,00,00000, on that day he had
issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,00000 and paid
Rs.15,00,00000 in cash. When the cheque amount
is not in the hands of the accused during the check
period, accused cannot prays to consider the amount
of cheque which was credited to his account after the
check period. Therefore, I am of the humble opinion
that this judgment of Hon’ble Apex court is not
helpful for the accused. Since, an amount of
322 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Rs.30,00,00000 was not in the hands of the accused
or in the hands of her family members during the
check period, I decline to consider this amount as an
income of the accused.
(XXIV). ISA12: Sale consideration amount of
Rs.6,00,00000 in respect of property No.464/1 and
others:
(a). During the investigation, the investigating
officer came to know that husband of the accused
had entered into an agreement with one Y.S. Srinivas
for sale of the properties bearing Sy. Nos.464/1,
78/A1B1, 116/B, 88, 116, 228/1 and 502 of
Ikkadahalli village and received advance amount of
Rs.6,00,00000, but the investigating officer has not
considered this amount for the reasons that this
income has not been declared in ITR and husband of
the accused had entered into an agreement after the
raid in order to inflate his income.
(b). The learned counsel for the accused has
argued that purchaser himself has given statement
323 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
that he had entered into an agreement with husband
of the accused to purchase the land and paid an
amount of Rs.6,00,00000, therefore this amount
has to be considered as an income of the accused.
On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor
has argued that no consideration amount was fixed
on the agreement, DW1 was not able to mention
measurement of the properties, he did not know
whether there was any road in those properties,
therefore his evidence cannot be believed.
(c). Admittedly, raid was conducted on
16.03.2012 and sale agreement was executed on
10.02.2010. In order to substantiate his case, the
accused has got examined agreement holder by
name Y.S. Srinivas as DW1, who deposed about the
sale agreement between him and H. Ravikumar ie.,
husband of the accused and payment of
Rs.6,00,00000 on the agreement. DW1 has also got
marked the agreement as Ex.D1.
324 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(d). After careful perusal of Ex.D1, I came to
know that as argued by the learned public
prosecutor, no consideration amount was fixed in the
agreement. The agreement speaks about sale of
properties and receipt of Rs.6,00,00000, but it is
silent about total consideration amount and last date
for enforcement of the agreement or for execution of
sale deed. Unless, the total consideration amount
and date for execution of sale deed is fixed said
agreement cannot be enforced. Ex.D1 is also silent
about the date of payment of balance consideration
amount. It is further admitted fact that agreement
was executed on 10.02.2010 and DW1 has given his
evidence on 29.08.2022, but till that date neither the
seller nor the purchaser have came forward to
enforce the agreement. In his cross examination,
DW1 has stated that as there was dispute in respect
of a property, he did not purchased the property.
But there is no evidence on record regarding any
dispute about any of the properties mentioned in the
325 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
agreement. Apart from that, as per Ex.D1, DW1
has agreed to purchase the properties bearing Sy.
Nos.464/1, 78/A1B1, 116/B, 88, 116, 228/1 and
502 of Ikkadahalli village. But, in his cross
examination, DW1 has stated that the survey
number of the property mentioned in the agreement
was 78 and except this there were no other
properties in the agreement. It is to be noted that
DW1 has also stated in his cross examination that
measurement of the properties has not been
mentioned in the agreement. But, a perusal of Ex.D
1 shows that property descriptions have been
mentioned in the schedule. Thus, the evidence of
DW1 shows that he did not know anything about
the properties mentioned in Ex.D1, if he had
executed this document with intent to purchase the
properties which are mentioned in Ex.D1, definitely,
he should have enquired about survey numbers of
the properties, total consideration amount and
period of agreement should have been mentioned.
326 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
(e). In his crossexamination, DW1 has stated
that after execution of agreement, original agreement
was with Ravikumar and he was having xerox copy
of the agreement. Generally, the purchaser who paid
advance amount and agreed to pay balance
consideration amount should keep the original
agreement with him and in case if the agreement was
canceled by both parties, the agreement would be
returned to the seller after return of advance
amount. Here, as per the evidence of DW1,
Ravikumar has repaid Rs.3,00,00000 in the year
2012 and Rs.3,00,000 in the year 2013. But, DW1
himself has produce the agreement of sale before the
court and he got marked it as Ex.D1. Thus, case of
the accused that he entered into an agreement with
DW1 to sell the above mentioned properties and
received advance amount of Rs.6,00,00000 without
fixing total consideration amount and period of
agreement is improbable and it cannot be believed.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the investigating
327 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
officer has rightly decline to consider said amount as
an income of the accused. Hence, I have not
considered Rs.6,00,00000 as an income of the
accused.
(XXV). IO1: Gold loan of Rs.6,00,00000 obtained
in Muthoot Finance:
(a). The investigating officer has considered loan
of Rs.6,00,00000 obtained by husband of the
accused as an income of the accused. As per the
contents of Ex.P127 husband of the accused had
borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,00000 by pledging gold.
The accused has also not disputed this fact. Hence, I
have considered Rs.6,00,00000 as an income of the
accused.
32. After discussion on documentary and oral
evidence of both sides and consideration of points urged
at the time of arguments, the income of the accused as
per the investigating officer, according to the accused
and as per the findings of the Court are as follows:
328 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
Code Description of According to the As per finding of
Value as per IO
No. the Income accused the Court
Salary of the
IS1 Rs.4,41,18200 Rs.4,81,18200 Rs.4,60,26500
accused
Rental income of
IR1 accused and his Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.57,91,80500 Rs.40,32,44900
family members
Agricultural
income from
IA1 Sy.No.67 of Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500 Rs.6,75,53500
Ranganathapura
Village
Loan income from
loan A/c.
IBL1 No.0424/721/26 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.30,00,00000
6 of Syndicate
Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
IBL2 No.061035711 of Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000 Rs.9,60,00000
LIC Housing
Finance
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209012562
IBL3 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000
of Kaveri
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209012551
IBL4 Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000 Rs.5,75,00000
of Kaveri
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
No.13209000566
IBL5 of Kaveri Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000 Rs.15,00,00000
Kalpatharu
Grameena Bank
Gold loan from
IBL6 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000 Rs.3,45,00000
Muthoot Finance
Loan income from
loan A/c. No.49 of
IBL7 Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000 Rs.9,70,00000
Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank
Loan income from
loan A/c.
IBL8 No.IPL/49/02 of Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.7,00,00000
Janata Co
operative Bank
IIBL Interest income Rs.10,44200 Rs.10,44200 Rs.7,72200
1 to credit to various
IIBL accounts of
329 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
accused and her
10
family members
Loan income from
IPL1 Rs.00 Rs.5,00,00000 Rs.5,00,00000
Krishnamurthy
Loan income from
IPL2 Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000
A.S. Manjunath
Loan income from
IPL3 Rs.00 Rs.4,00,00000 Rs.4,00,00000
Karriappa
Income from
IB1 fabrication Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000 Rs.8,16,26000
business
IIP1 Matured &
to surrendered LIC Rs.87,50000 Rs.87,50000 Rs.3,43,07100
IIP5 Policies
Sale proceeds
ISA1
from property Rs.7,00,00000 +
and Rs.7,00,00000 Rs.12,10,00000
No.55 of Rs.5,10,00000
ISA2
Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds
from
ISA3
Sy.No.16/P4, P5, Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000 Rs.23,65,00000
to 6
P6 and 16/P7, of
Menasi Village
Sale proceeds
ISA7 from property Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000 Rs.70,00,00000
No.78
Sale proceeds
from property
ISA8 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000 Rs.16,50,00000
No.58 of
Nagarabhavi
Sale proceeds
from Sy.No.10,
ISA9 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000 Rs.1,85,00000
46/3 of
Chikkadevarahalli
ISA Sale proceeds
10 & from Sy.No.67 of
Rs.00 Rs.30,00,00000 Rs.00
ISA Ranganathapura
11
Sale proceeds
ISA from Sy.No.464/1
Rs.00 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.00
12 and others of
Ekkadahalli,
IO1 Gold Loan Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000 Rs.6,00,00000
Total Rs.2,95,38,27500 Rs.3,46,78,27500 Rs.2,92,92,60200
33. After analyzing the oral and documentary
evidence on record and calculation made by this court,
330 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
this court finds that total value of assets of the accused
and her family members during the check period is
Rs.1,35,21,52100, total expenditure of the accused and
her family members during the check period is
Rs.1,39,09,89200 and total income of the accused and
her family members during the check period is
Rs.2,92,92,60200.
34. For the purpose of ascertaining as to what is the
percentage of disproportionate assets, the accepted
formula is that assets and expenditure shall be added,
then lawful income has to be deducted from total value
of assets and expenditure. If the value of assets and
expenditure is added, it comes to Rs.2,74,31,41300
(Rs.1,35,2152100 + Rs.1,39,09,89200). If decided
income of the accused is subtracted from the total value
of assets and expenditure i.e., Rs.2,74,31,41300, we get
disproportionate income. As aforesaid, this court finds
that the income of the accused and her family members
during the check period is Rs.2,92,92,60200. If income
331 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
i.e., Rs.2,92,92,60200 is subtracted from total value of
assets and expenditure i.e., Rs.2,74,31,41300, it comes
to Rs.18,61,18900 (Rs.2,74,31,41300 –
Rs.2,92,92,60200 = Rs.18,61,18900). Thus, the
calculation shows that income of the accused and her
family members during the check period is more than
the value of the assets and expenditure of the accused
and her family members during the check period.
Therefore, there is no question of earnings of
Disproportionate Assets by the accused during the check
period, because income of the accused and her family
members during the check period is Rs.18,61,18900
excess to the total value of her assets and expenditure.
Therefore, it cannot be held that the accused has
possessed the properties and pecuniary resources
disproportionate to her known source of income in her
name and in the names of her family members during
the check period. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the
Negative
332 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
35. Point No.2: As discussed above, the findings
and calculation arrived by this Court is as under:
Assets Rs.1,35,21,52100
Expenditure Rs.1,39,09,89200
Assets + Expenditure Rs.2,74,31,41300
Total Income Rs.2,92,95,30200
Disproportionate Assets Nil
36. Aforesaid statement reveals that there is excess
income of more than Rs.18 lakhs than the total value of
assets and expenditure of the accused. It is settled
principles of law that initial burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove the foundation of fact, thereafter
the accused is required to rebut the presumption
available in favour of the prosecution. In the case on
hand, the accused has succeeded in accounting for
having the properties/assets by herself and her husband
to the satisfaction of the court. Having regard to the
discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion
that there is no escape from holding that the accused
has satisfactorily explained and accounted for the value
333 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
of the assets held by her and also under various heads
of expenses incurred by her. Therefore, there are no
circumstances to hold that the accused has acquired
assets disproportionate to her known source of income.
Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the
accused is acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is
set at liberty.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his
surety executed stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on
12th day of August 2025).
(Nandeesha R.P.)
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru (CCH 79).
334 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 M. Jayaram PW2 Anjan Kumar K. PW3 Gangarudraiah PW4 Sreedhar PW5 R. Nithin PW6 Dr. K. N. Chandrashekar PW7 H.A. Upendra PW8 Narasimhamurthy P. PW9 Mohamed Mukaram
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Copy of the complaint Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P2 Assets and Liabilities Statement of
accused along with covering letter
Ex.P3 Copies of the Affidavits submitted by the
accused
Ex.P4 Copy of the Sale deed dated 02.07.2003
and RTCs in the name of DW6
Ex.P5 Copy of the Sale deed dated 17.01.2003 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P6 Copy of the Sale deed dated 27.11.2003 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P7 Copy of the Sale deed dated 23.06.2004 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P8 & P.9 Copies of two Sale deeds dated 28.05.2004
335 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015in the name of accused
Ex.P10 Copy of the Sale deed dated 06.07.2004 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P11 Copy of the General Power of Attorney by
Smt. S. Nalini Bai in the name of DW6
Ex.P12 Copy of the Sale deed dated 07.03.2005 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P13 Copy of the Sale deed dated 10.03.2005 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P14 Copy of the Sale deed dated 04.03.2005 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P15 & P.16 Copies of the Sale deeds dated 20.03.2006
in the name of DW6
Ex.P17 & P.18 Copies of the Sale deeds dated 22.03.2006
in the name of DW6
Ex.P19 Copy of the Sale deed dated 05.04.2006 in
the name of DW6
Ex.P20 Copy of the Sale deed dated 25.01.2006 in
the name of accused, covering letter, letter
of instruction, Tax paid receipt, Blue print
approval application, property tax letter
etc.,
Ex.P21 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
07.08.2006 in the name of DW6
Ex.P22 & P.23 Certified copies of the sale deeds dated
15.07.2006 in the name of DW6
Ex.P24 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
05.10.2007 in the name of DW6
Ex.P25 Certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated
11.07.2008
Ex.P26 Certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated
28.08.2008
Ex.P27 & P.28 Certified copies of the Sale Agreements
dated 09.09.2008
336 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P29 to P.31 Certified copies of the Sale Agreements
dated 28.08.2008
Ex.P32 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
05.01.2009
Ex.P33 Authorisation Order dated 17.12.2011 of
Superintendent of Police
Ex.P33(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P34 FIR
Ex.P34(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P35 Documents received from the Sub
Registrar office of Doddaballapur on
24.02.2012
Ex.P36 Documents received from the Sub
Registrar office of Peenya on 27.02.2012
Ex.P37 Documents received from the Sub
Registrar office of Nagarabhavi on
27.02.2012
Ex.P38 Documents received from the Union Bank
of India, Chandra Layout Branch on
28.02.2012
Ex.P39 to P.41 Documents received from SubRegistrar
office of Peenya on 02.03.2012
Ex.P42 Documents received from SubRegistrar
office of Peenya on 03.03.2012
Ex.P43 Documents received from Syndicate Bank
on 07.03.2012
Ex.P44 Documents received from ICICI Bank on
14.03.2012
Ex.P46 Report of PW2
Ex.P47 Search Warrant
Ex.P47(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P47(b) Signature of accused
Ex.P47(c) Signature of PW3
337 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P48 PF No. 53/12
Ex.P48(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P49 Search Warrant
Ex.P49(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P49(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P49(c) Signature of Shwethambika
Ex.P49(d) Signature of accused
Ex.P50 Report of Police Inspector
Sanjeevarayappa
Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P51 Search Warrant
Ex.P52 House search mahazar
Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P53 Search Warrant
Ex.P54 Search Mahazar
Ex.P55 Report of Police Inspector – S.T. Yogesh
Ex.P55(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P56 PF No.54/12
Ex.P56(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P57 Documents received from Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank on 16.03.2012
Ex.P58 Documents received from Nagarabhavi
SubRegistrar’s office on 17.03.2012
Ex.P59 Documents received from Janatha Seva
Cooperative Bank on 19.03.2012
Ex.P60 Documents received from Canara Bank on
19.03.2012
Ex.P61 Documents received from Kollegal Sub
Registrar’s office on 20.03.2012
Ex.P62 Documents received from Syndicate Bank
on 26.03.2012
338 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P63 Mobile bill details received from Airtel on
27.03.2012
Ex.P64 to P.71 Documents received from Doddaballapur
SubRegistrar’s office on 28.03.2012
Ex.P72 Documents received from BSNL office on
02.04.2012
Ex.P73 Documents received from SSGV School on
02.04.2012
Ex.P74 Documents received from Reliance on
09.04.2012
Ex.P75 Documents received from BBMP office
regarding the service details of the accused
on 13.04.2012
Ex.P75(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P76 to P.79 On 19.04.2012 received documents from
Peenya SubRegistrar’s office, Animal
Husbandry Department, passport office
and PES PU College
Ex.P77(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P80 Documents received from LIC office on
21.04.2012
Ex.P81 Documents received from BESCOM office
on 23.04.2012
Ex.P82 Documents received from RTO,
Jnanabharathi on 26.04.2012
Ex.P83 Documents received from Star Health and
Allied Insurance on 27.04.2012
Ex.P84 Documents received from Canara Bank on
07.05.2012
Ex.P85 Documents received from LIC office on
14.05.2012
Ex.P86 & P.87 On 21.05.2012 received documents from
BBMP office and Income Tax office
Ex.P88 Documents received from SBI bank on
339 Spl. C.C. No.376/201521.06.2012
Ex.P89 Documents received from Sheshadripuram
college and Global Academy of Technology
on 30.06.2012
Ex.P90 Documents received from LIC office on
09.07.2012
Ex.P91 Documents received from Muthoot
Finance on 23.07.2012
Ex.P92 and Documents received from BBMP office on
P.93 16.08.2012
Ex.P94 Documents received from Doddaballapur
SubRegistrar’s office on 03.10.2012
Ex.P95 Documents received from Fortis Hospital
on 04.10.2012
Ex.P96 Received letter from BESCOM office on
05.10.2012
Ex.P97 to On 08.10.2012 received documents from
P.102 Nagarabhavi SubRegistrar’s office, Kaveri
Kalpatharu Gramina Bank, BESCOM and
M.V. Solar System
Ex.P103 Documents received from Janatha Seva
Cooperative Bank on 09.10.2012
Ex.P104 and On 05.11.2012 received documents from
P.105 Peenya SubRegistrar’s Office and
Bengaluru Water Supply Board
Ex.P106 Documents received from Nagarabhavi
SubRegistrar’s office on 13.11.2012
Ex.P107 Documents received from Doddaballapur
SubRegistrar’s office on 15.11.2012
Ex.P108 & 109 On 13.12.2012 received documents from
PWD office on Building Valuation Report
and Kaveri Kalpatharu Gramina Bank
Ex.P108(a) Report from page No.466 to 468 in Ex.P
108
Ex.P108(b) Signature of PW5
340 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P108(c) Report from page No.469 to 470 in Ex.P
108
Ex.P108(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P108(e) Report from page No.471 to 474 in Ex.P
108
Ex.P108(f) Signature of PW5
Ex.P108(g) Report from page No.475 and 476 in Ex.P
108
Ex.P108(h) Signature of PW5
Ex.P108(i) Report of Assistant Executive Engineer
regarding the value of the building
Ex.P110 Documents received from BBMP office on
02.01.2013
Ex.P111 to On 02.02.2013 received documents from
P.113 Peenya SubRegistrar’s office, Kaveri
School and Oxford School
Ex.P114 Documents received from Kanakaloka
Souharda credit Cooperative Bank on
08.02.2013
Ex.P115 Documents received from Kanakapura
SubRegistrar’s office on 12.02.2013Ex.P116 Documents received from Cambridge
School on 18.02.2013
Ex.P117 Documents received from SBM School on
15.03.2013
Ex.P118 Documents received from Peenya Sub
Registrar’s office on 08.07.2013Ex.P119 Documents received from Goldfinch Hotel,
Bengaluru on 24.07.2013
Ex.P120 Documents received from Satellite Club,
Bengaluru on 09.07.2013
Ex.P121 Documents received from Assistant
341 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Revenue Officer on 18.07.2013
Ex.P122 Documents received from Assistant
Executive Engineer, BWSSB on
06.08.2013
Ex.P123 and Documents received from M/s. Krishan
P.124 Gas, Agency on 29.07.2013
Ex.P125 Details and documents received from BGS
Rural High School, Bengaluru on
08.07.2013
Ex.P126 Certified copy of the Sale deed from Senior
SubRegistrar, Doddaballapur on
06.04.2013
Ex.P127 Details received from Branch Manager,
Muthoot Finance, Nagarabhavi regarding
gold loan on 04.07.2013
Ex.P128 Order from Superintendent of Police on
03.10.2013
Ex.P128(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P129 Report received on 29.11.2013 from
Statistical branch on the family expenses
of accused
Ex.P129(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P130 Gift deed along with other documents in
the name of husband of accused received
from SubRegistrar, Nagarabhavi on
05.03.2014
Ex.P130(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P131 and Certified copies of the Sale Deeds received
P.132 from Senior SubRegistrar, Peenya on
21.05.2014
Ex.P131(a) Signature of PW9
and P.132(a)
Ex.P133 Documents received from Rajajinagar Co
operative Bank, Rajajinagar on
342 Spl. C.C. No.376/201522.05.2014
Ex.P133(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P134 Documents received from Revenue Officer,
Chandralayout, BBMP on 03.06.2015
Ex.P134(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P135 Order of Superintendent of Police,
Lokayukta on 06.04.2013
Ex.P136 Documents with respect to Sy.No. 83/1 at
Nagarabhavi Village
Ex.P137 Documents with respect to deposit for
water connection
Ex.P138 Documents with respect to tax payment
for the property at Nanjarasappa Layout,
Bengaluru
Ex.P138(a) Contract included in Ex.P138
Ex.P138(b) Documents from page No.149 to 161 of
Ex.P138
Ex.P139 Details regarding payment of tax with
respect to site at Rajarajeshwari
Ex.P139(a) Documents from page No.163 to 168 of
Ex.P139
Ex.P139(b) Document at page No.29 of Ex.P139
Ex.P140 Details regarding payment of Income Tax
Ex.P141 Documents pertaining to V.R. Electronics,
Vijayanagar
Ex.P141(a) Details regarding payment to V.R.
Electronics, Vijayanagar for buying Fridge
Ex.P141(b) Details regarding payment for buying
Thread Mill
Ex.P141(c) Details regarding payment for buying Kent
Grand Water Purifier
Ex.P141(d) Details regarding payment for buying
Automatic Water Level Controller
343 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015Ex.P141(e) Details regarding payment for buying
Kenstar Washing Machine
Ex.P141(f) Details regarding payment for buying
Tissot watch
Ex.P141(g) Details regarding payment for buying
Nokia Mobile Phone
Ex.P141(h) Details regarding payment for buying Bajaj
Chetak vehicle
Ex.P141(i) Details regarding payment for buying Sun
Zone Solar Systems
Ex.P141(j) Details regarding payment for buying
Nokia Mobile Phone (E71)
Ex.P141(k) Details regarding payment for buying
Samsung Mobile Phone (S5830)
Ex.P141(l) Details regarding payment for buying Sony
DVD Music Systems
Ex.P141(m) Details regarding payment for buying
Solar Water Heater
Ex.P141(n) Details regarding payment of Party Funds
and P.141(o)
Ex.P142 Details regarding payment for the stay at
Travel Inn Hotel, Dharwad
Ex.P142(a) Document at page No.102 of Ex.P142LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
ACCUSED:
D.W.1 Y.S. Srinivas
D.W.2 K. Ravikumar
D.W.3 Manjula
D.W.4 A.S. Manjunath
D.W.5 Kariyappa
D.W.6 H. Ravikumar
D.W.7 Shanthakumari N.
344 Spl. C.C. No.376/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Original copy of Purchase Deed
Ex.D.1(a) Signature of DW1
Ex.D.1(b) Signature of DW6
Ex.D.2 Death Certificate of father of DW2
Ex.D.3 Agreement Letter
Ex.D.3(a) Signature of Krishnamurthy (Father of DW2)
Ex.D.3(b) Signature of DW6
Ex.D.4 Original copy of Affidavit
Ex.D.4(a) Signature of DW3
Ex.D.5 Agreement Letter
Ex.D.5(a) Signature of DW6
Ex.D.6 Agreement Letter
Ex.D.6(a) Signature of DW5
Ex.D.6(b) Signature of DW6(Nandeesha R.P.)
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru (CCH 79).