Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs Krishnappa on 27 January, 2025
KABC010164362017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 27th day of January, 2025
:PRESENT:
K.M. RADHAKRISHNA B.A.LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.312/2017
Complainant : The State of Karnataka, represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru Urban Division,
Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
-Versus-
Accused : Sri. Krishnappa,
S/o. Chikka Narasimhaiah,
aged about 55 years,
Bill Collector,
Office of the Chikkajala Grama
Panchayati, Jala Hobly,
Bengaluru,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
R/a.No.73/2/54,
Palakkamma Nagara,
2 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Chikkajala post,
Bengaluru North Taluk - 562 157.
(By Sri P.N. Hegde, Advocate)
Date of offence From 12.8.1993 to 7.8.2014
Date of report of 13.8.2014
offence
Date of arrest of
--
the accused
Date of release
on bail --
Total period of
custody --
Name of the
complainant Sri. Dayanand
Date of
commencement
of recording 17.4.2018
evidence
Date of closing
26.9.2022
of evidence
Offences Under Section 13(1)(e) read with section
complained of 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the
As per the order
Judge
Sd/- 27/1/25
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA),
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
3 Spl. C.C.312/2017
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police from the
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru (R) division has laid the
charge sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)
of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the
PC Act) in Crime No.48/2014 got registered by the
Bengaluru Urban wing of Lokayukta police.
2. Allegations in brief are that, the accused has
joined as a Bill Collector of the Chikkajala grama
panchayath on 12.8.1993. He was a public servant as
defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Based on the
source information report dtd.31.7.2014, the Lokayukta
Police of Bengaluru rural wing have got registered a suo-
moto crime bearing No.20/2014. They have conducted the
raid upon the house of the accused on 7.8.2014 and
seized several documents. His check period is from
12.8.1993 to 7.8.2014. During the said period, the
accused had accumulated the total assets worth
Rs.63,66,528/- (400.78%) disproportionate to his known
sources of an income worth Rs.15,88,501/-. The accused
has not given satisfactory accounts therefor. Therefore the
prosecution stand is that, the accused has committed the
afore-referred offence.
3. After complying the mandate under Section
190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and registration of the case, the
4 Spl. C.C.312/2017
presence of the accused was secured. He was represented
by a counsel and got enlarged on bail. Having furnished
copies of the charge-sheet under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
this court has framed the charge against the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act, read over and explained the
same in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty
but claims to be tried.
4. To prove it’s allegation, the prosecution has
examined 17 witnesses as Pws.1 to 17 and got marked
documents as per Ex.P1 to P99. After closure of the
prosecution evidence and getting compliance of Section
437 (A), the accused has been examined under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having denied the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him, in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be false, the
accused has adduced the evidence as Dw.9 apart
examining his 8 witnesses as Dw.1 to 8. He has got
marked documents as per Ex.D1 to 21 in support of his
defence that, he is an innocent.
5. Heard arguments from the learned Public
Prosecutor and the defence arguments with reference to
the written arguments from the learned counsel for the
accused. After going through the record, the following
points would arise for the consideration.
5 Spl. C.C.312/2017
1 Does the prosecution prove beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused was
a public servant and his check period is
12.8.1993 to 7.8.2014?
2 Does the prosecution prove beyond all
reasonable doubt that, the accused had
accumulated the assets worth
Rs.63,66,528/- (400.78%) disproportio-
nate to his known sources of an income
during the check period and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the
PC Act, 1988?
6. Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: Admittedly, the accused was
temporarily appointed as the Bill Collector of the
Chikkajala grama panchayath on 12.8.1993. Pw.1 Sri.
M.J. Dayanada was the Police inspector of the Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru rural district (for short the rural
wing). He deposed to have conducted the preliminary
enquiry against the accused on his assets worth
Rs.33,93,486/- (514%) disproportionate during the check
period from 12.8.1993 to 7.8.2014. He claims to have
submitted the source report dtd.31.7.2014 as per Ex.P11
6 Spl. C.C.312/2017
before the Superintendent of Police (for short the SP)
concerned. Pw.12 Sri. Vijay kumar was the Deputy
Superintendent (for short the Dy.S.P.) of the Lokayukta,
Rural wing. On 6.8.2012 he got registered the FIR vide
Ex.P24 in Crime No.20/2014 with the administrative
approval of the S.P. concerned under Section 17 of the PC
Act. Accordingly, the FIR is seen to have forwarded to the
jurisdictional Prl. District Court of the Bengaluru Rural
district.
8. Pw.12 has conducted the raid on the house of the
accused as per the search panchanama at Ex.P10
dtd.7.8.2014 in the presence of panchas. Pw.4 Sri.
Ramachanda K.R. is one of the pancha who asserts the
raid in his presence. Subsequently and for want of
territorial jurisdiction, the Additional Director General of
Police of the Lokayukta for the State (for short the ADGP)
has passed an order vide Ex.P41 and directed as
hereunder:
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಲೋಕಾಯುಕ್ತ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ ಪೊಲೀಸ್
ಠಾಣೆಯ ಮೊಕದ್ದ ಮೆ ಸಂ.20/2014 ರ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಶ್ರೀ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಪ್ಪ , ಬಿಲ್
ಕಲೆಕ್ಟ ರ್, ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಜಾಲ ಗ್ರಾಮ ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಉತ್ತರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು,
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಇವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ ದಾಳಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು
ನಗರ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಘನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಳಪಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ
ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ ಲೋಕಾಯುಕ್ತ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ
ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ ಲೋಕಾಯುಕ್ತ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಥಮ ವರ್ತಮಾನ ವರದಿ
ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ಪುನಃ ಹಿಂದಿನ ತನಿಖಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ತನಿಖೆ
ಮುಂದುವರೆಸಲು ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ನೀವು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಕ್ರಮದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಈ ಕಚೇರಿಗೆ ಪಾಲನಾ ವರದಿ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
7 Spl. C.C.312/2017
9. Accordingly, Pw.12 has under the permission of
the jurisdictional court vide Ex.P28 dtd.3.9.2014
transferred the case file to the Bengaluru urban police
station of the Karnataka Lokayukta (for short the urban
wing). They in turn have got registered the FIR vide Ex.P27
in CR No.48/2014 and again entrusted the investigation to
Pw.12 as directed by the ADGP. Having carried out the
investigation in part, Pw.12 in view of his transfer deposed
to have handed over the case file to the police inspector Sri.
K.V. Krishnappa. Pw.14 Sri. Naveen Kumar the Dy.S.P.
(for short the I.O.) of the Rural wing has concluded the
remaining part of the investigation and laid the charge
sheet. The allegation therein is that, the accused being a
public servant had acquired the assets disproportionate to
his known sources of an income as per the following
details:
Total Assets Rs. 54,84,808-00 Expenditure Rs. 24,70,221-00 Total Rs. 79,55,029-00 Income Rs. 15,88,501.00 DA Rs. 63,66,528.00 Percentage 400.78%
10. The accused denies said allegations made against
him as baseless. He asserts that, he is an innocent and
has not committed any offence as alleged. The learned
counsel representing him contends that, the accused is not
a public servant. In support of it, he relies on entries in
8 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Sl.No.11, l2 and 13 at page-1 of the investigation report
marked at Ex.P59 that, ಆಪಾದಿತ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಪ್ಪ ರವರು ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ
ನೌಕರನಾಗಿದ್ದು , ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ದಾಳಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರಿಗೆ
ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂ.8,357/- ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು . Alongside, he drew
my attention towards proceedings of the government
marked at Ex.D1. Part-II thereof says that, ಗ್ರಾಮ
ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿಗಳ ನೌಕರರುಗಳು ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ನೌಕರರಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರು ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ
ನೌಕರರಿಗೆ ಲಭ್ಯ ವಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸೇವಾ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯ ಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಲು
ಹಕ್ಕು ದಾರರಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಅವರಿಗೆ ರಜೆ, ಪ್ರವಾಸ, ಭತ್ಯೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸೇವಾ
ಸೌಲಭ್ಯ ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗ್ರಾಮ ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿಗಳು ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ
ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿಯ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಾಹಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಅನುಮೋಧನೆಯನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದು ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸತಕ್ಕ ದ್ದು .
11. Pw.2 Sri. Nagaraj is the Development Officer of
the Chikkajala grama panchayat. He too in the cross-
examination admits the contents of Ex.D1. It is not in
dispute that, the grama panchayat is a local authority.
Section 2(c) (ii) of the PC Act makes clear that, “public
servant means, any person in the service or pay of a local
authority.” Admittedly, the accused was rendering his
service as a bill collector from the date of his appointment
till the date of raid under the pay of the grama panchayat.
The I.O. is seen to have indicated the check period of the
accused at page-4 of Ex.P59 as 12.8.1993 to 7.8.2014.
Thus needless to say that, the statutory law always
prevails over the admissions of Pw.2 and the document at
Ex.D1. In the circumstance. I am declined to agree with the
learned defence counsel but to uphold the prosecution
9 Spl. C.C.312/2017
stand that, the accused is a public servant for the purpose
of the PC Act.
12. The related contention of the learned defence
counsel is that, the prosecution sanction order at Ex.P2
under Section 19 of the P.C. Act issued by the grama
panchayat through Pw.2 does not bear any legality or
sanctity in the eye of law. Of course, the validity of the
sanction can be questioned at any stage of proceedings
even as guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in it’s various
verdicts so also in the case of Nanjappa Vs. State of
Karnataka (2015 (14) SCC 186). As noticed by the
learned defence counsel, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Bengaluru urban Zilla panchayat is shown as the
disciplinary authority at page-1 of Ex.P59. But it does not
justify his contention that, the grama panchayat is not the
competent authority to accord the prosecution sanction.
Section 113(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act makes
unambiguous that, the grama panchayat is the competent
authority. In fact, the I.O. deposed to have forwarded the
charge-sheet (final report) with its related relevant
enclosures and a request letter to the C.E.O. of Zilla
panchayat for the prosecution sanction. The CEO in turn,
has forwarded the same to the grama panchayat for
needful to be done in accordance with the law.
13. Now, this has become the reason for the learned
defence counsel to say in his oral arguments that, Ex.P2
10 Spl. C.C.312/2017
was issued by Pw.2 on the direction of the CEO without an
application of mind but not based on final report and the
documents sent by the I.O. Therefore according to him,
Ex.P2 is illegal. He relies on the Authority in the case of
CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal reported as (2014) 14 SCC
295 and took a stand that, the sanction should not be for
mere formality but exfacie disclose that, the sanctioning
authority has considered the evidence and other material
placed before it. Here, the evidence of the I.O. that, he sent
the investigation report with all relevant documents to the
authority is not in dispute. Certain documents like FIR,
search mahazar, statement of witnesses and final
investigation report (charge-sheet) etc. indicated at Sl.No.1
in page-2 of Ex.P2 is seen to have gone through by the
authority in detail before issuing the sanction.
Interestingly, the learned defence counsel gets an
admission in the cross-examination of Pw.2 at para-10
that, ತನಿಖಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿ, ಆದಾಯ, ಖರ್ಚು ಇವುಗಳ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಅಂಕಿ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ-2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ವ್ಯ ಯಕ್ತಿಕವಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ-2 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಅಂಕಿ ಅಂಶಗಳು ತನಿಖಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು
ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. In view of the same, his arguments that,
Ex.P2 was issued based on the direction of CEO and
without proper application of mind etc. bears no force.
Moreover, the final report / charge-sheet does not mean
only the brief story of the allegation, but includes all other
relevant materials apart documents reflected at para-2 of
Ex.P2. It’s plain perusal reveals that, the complete and
11 Spl. C.C.312/2017
conscious scrutiny of the entire record made by the grama
panchayat apart analysing all the material before
according the sanction. In the situation, the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Agarwal inspires to justify the validity of the sanction
order, rather than the defence theory. Therefore the
question of illegality would not arise.
14. The learned defence counsel has with reference
to the CBI manual, questions the legality of the FIR
registered and the present proceedings against the accused
on various legal aspects calling them to be serious lapses.
According to him, no preliminary enquiry as desirable in
assets disproportionate case was conducted by Pw.1 but
prepared the source information report at Ex.P11 on the
basis of assumptions and presumptions for mere
formality, which does not even disclose documents
collected. He notices, the non-application of mind by the
S.P. while invoking Section 17 of the PC Act so as to
ascertain the existence of prima-facie case before directing
for registration of the FIR and to undertake an
investigation. In support of this contention, he relies on
the Authorities of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
Lalitha Kumari reported as 2014 Cr.L.J. 470, Charan
Singh Vs. State reported as 2021 SCC 469 and of the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in K.R. Kumara Naika’s
case reported as 2022 SCC OnLine KAR 1362.
12 Spl. C.C.312/2017
15. Undoubtedly, Ex.P2 may not refer any
documents. But in the evidence, Pw.1 appraises as to how
he has conducted the enquiry and gathered the source
information as detailed in the report. Interestingly, the
accused is not disputing that, the source information
found in the report relates to the assets belongs to him and
the disproportionate. This implies that, the collection of an
information as such in the absence of enquiry is
impossible. The collection of an information with or
without documents is a matter which depends upon the
facts of each case. Therefore, it cannot be said that,
Ex.P11 was prepared on the basis of assumptions and
presumptions. Even otherwise, the law laid down in the
afore-referred authorities clearly guides that, such enquiry
is desirable but not mandatory. The information which
prima-facie discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence is sufficient to uphold the validity of source report
and put the law into motion against the public servant.
Therefore the defence contention on this count is
unacceptable.
16. Unambiguously, the Hon’ble Apex court in its
various decisions including the case of Surya sankaran
karri reported as (2006) 7 SCC 172 is seen to have made it
clear that, the PC Act 1988 is intended to protect the
public servant from vexatious prosecution. As already
detailed at para-7 of this judgment, the Bengaluru rural
wing has conducted the raid on the house of the accused
13 Spl. C.C.312/2017
after the FIR came to be registered. Admittedly the ADGP
was the head of the Karnataka Lokayukta police wing for
the entire state. As per his order at Ex.P41, the Bengaluru
rural wing has transferred the case to the urban wing for
want of territorial jurisdiction. They in turn, have got
registered the FIR afresh in Crime No.48/2014 and again
entrusted the further investigation to Pw.12 of the rural
wing as directed by the ADGP who is the above rank of
Superintendent of Police.
17. Now, the learned defence counsel points out as if
the invocation of Section 17 of the PC Act by the S.P. and
his casual approach in directing for registration of the FIR
and to take up the investigation is without the application
of mind. Therefore according to him, such order renders
itself illegal from an inception. That apart, his contention is
that, after the urban wing has registered the FIR and
transferred the case file to the rural wing, the S.P. of the
urban wing has not authorized Pw.12 to carry out the
investigation. His further grievance is that, the
authorization issued by the rural S.P. to that extent is
contrary to law and vitiates the proceedings against the
accused. While noticing the entitlement of the accused for
acquittal, the counsel relies on the following verdicts of the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
1 Writ petition No.16928/2023 (GM-RES) – Pramod
Kumar M.G. Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta, P.S. Mandya
14 Spl. C.C.312/2017
2 Writ petition No.14986/2023 (GM-RES) – Ajith
Kumar Rai Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta Police
3 Crl.Revn. Petition No.699/2017 – State of Karnataka
by Lokayukta police Vs. G. Ramachari
18. As a counter, the learned Public Prosecutor
contends that, the minor procedural lapses are bound to
take place but does not go to the root of the case at the fag
end of the trial. According to him, even otherwise, such
lapses and technicalities should have raised at the earliest
stage of proceedings, as raised in the afore-stated verdicts.
This contention bears the considerable force for an
appreciation. Here, and at the cost of repetition I am to
say that, the ADGP is the common head to both the
rural and urban wings. He is above the rank of the S.P.
Therefore, the authorization issued under Section 17 of the
PC Act by the rural S.P. subsequent to the registration of
the FIR by the urban wing renders to be immaterial as the
authority of the ADGP at Ex.P41 justifies the compliance of
the legal requirement under the said provision. Hence, I
am declined to accept the defence contention.
19. Now, the point to make a note is that, the
Hon’ble High Court having considered the legal lapses in
its afore-referred verdicts at the pre-trial stage, has
discharged the accused and given the liberty to the police
to proceed against them in accordance with law after
attending all such technicalities and lapses. Here in the
15 Spl. C.C.312/2017
case on hand, we are at the post-trial stage. In the
circumstance, I am to say that, had there been no
disproportionate of assets in the case, the minor lapses
raised by the defence counsel definitely could have come to
the rescue of the accused. But when the trial evidence on
record supports the allegation of disproportionate, the
accused being the public servant is bound to answer
therefor. If not, such lapses needs to ignore and decide the
case on merits. In other words, the procedural delays and
legal technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the
objectives of the Act. (see Ram Singh’s case reported as
2000 5 SCC 88). In the context of the discussion herein
before, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases of Lalithkumari, Charan Singh, Ashok Kumar
Agarwal and covered the same by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in its verdicts cited at para-17 above would not
stand by the defence contention.
20. Generally, and even as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of M.Krishna Reddy Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported as (1992) 4
SCC 45, in the case of Vasanth Rao Guhe Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2017) 14 SCC 442, the obligation is on
the prosecution to prove the offence of criminal misconduct
rather than expecting the accused to prove his defence.
However, he can destroy the presumption available to the
prosecution under Section 20 of the PC Act based on the
preponderance of probabilities. With this background, I
16 Spl. C.C.312/2017
am to decide the disproportionate or otherwise as alleged
on the strength of the evidence on record.
I. Assets of the accused
21. The oral evidence of the I.O. and the contents of his
final report at Ex.P59 discloses, the acquisition of assets by
the accused under 22 different heads worth
Rs.54,84,808/- during his check period from 12.8.1993 to
7.8.2014 as hereunder:
Table No. I (Assets)
Sl.
Description of assets Value (in Rs.)
No.Site bearing No.54 in Sy.No.73/2
measuring 20 x 30 feet situated at
1 Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, 4,30,000.00
Bengaluru North Taluk standing in the
name of wife of accused.
2 Value of the Building 8,42,872.00
Site bearing No.28 in Sy.No.73/2
measuring 20 x 30 feet situated at
3 Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, 4,20,000.00
Bengaluru North Taluk standing in the
joint name of the accused and his wife.
Site bearing No.29 in Sy.No.73/2
measuring 20 x 30 feet situated at
4 Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, 4,20,000.00
Bengaluru North Taluk standing in the
joint name of the accused and his wife.
Site bearing Nos.30 and 31 in
Sy.No.73/2 measuring 30 x 40 feet
situated at Chikkajala village, Jala
5 8,40,000-00
hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk standing
in the joint name of the accused and his
wife.
Site bearing No.26 in Sy.No.116
measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at
6 Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North 6,00,000.00
Taluk standing in the name of wife of
accused.
17 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Site bearing No.27 in Sy.No.116
measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at
7 Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North 2,00,000.00
Taluk standing in the name of wife of
accused.
Site bearing No.48(B) in Sy.No.126
measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at
8 2,10,000.00
Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North
Taluk standing in the name of accused.
Toyota Qualis Car bearing No.KA-04-
9 4,15,000.00
MD-7218
Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler
10 42,973.00
bearing No.KA-50-E-3758
11 Hercules Atom Cycle 6,330.00
S.B. Account No.848010110005999 at
12 State Bank of India, Bettalasuru 3,457.00
branch, Bengaluru North taluk.
S.B. Account No.1218010006519 at
13 Vijaya Bank, Vidyanagara Branch, 66,647.00
Bengaluru.
S.B. Account No.121801011001439 at
14 Vijaya Bank, Vidyanagara Branch, 2,23,411.00
Bengaluru.
S.B. Account No.121801011002024 at
15 Vijaya Bank, Vidyanagara Branch, 1,484.00
Bengaluru.
S.B. A/c.No.3252500101895001 at
16 Karnataka Bank Ltd., 939-00
Hunasamaranahalli Branch, Bengaluru.
R.D. Account No.10502867 at
17 Bettlasuru post office, Bengaluru north 9,200.00
taluk.
18 Cash on hand at the time of raid 96,000.00
Gold Jewellery weighing 180.06 gms.
19 2,96,000.00
found at the time of raid
Silver articles weighing 500 gms. found
20 20,000.00
at the time of raid
Household articles found during the
raid of the house at House No.851, 2 nd
21 3,38,395.00
main road, Meenakshi Nagara,
Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.
Amount deposited towards availing HPC
22 gas connection bearing Consumer 2,100.00
No.630676
Total 54,84,808.00
18 Spl. C.C.312/2017
22. The accused is not disputing item No.1, 3 to 7,
10 to 12, 14 to 18 and 22 worth Rs.35,05,894/-. Item
No.2, 9, 13, 19, 20 and 21 worth Rs.19,78,914/- are in
serious dispute. Hence, the item-wise value of disputed
assets needs a detailed discussion on the strength of the
evidence on record to decide the correctness or otherwise of
the value considered by the I.O.
23. Item No.2: It pertains to the cost of the house
construction in Site No.54 at Akkamma Nagara.
Admittedly, it is a duplex house comprising of ground floor
+ 2 floors in the area of 30 x 20 sq.feet with a compound
wall. Admittedly it was constructed in the year 2010-11.
According to the I.O. the construction cost spent by the
accused is Rs.8,42,872/- including the expenses of solar
connection. Pw.3 Sri. B.N. Dwarakinath is the Assistant
Executive Engineer of P.W.D. It is not in dispute that, he
visited and inspected the spot on 17.11.2015 and claims to
have assessed the cost of construction as per his report at
Ex.P8. Site No.54 was admittedly purchased in the name
of Smt. Venkatalakshmamma the wife of the accused vide
a sale deed at Ex.P33. 2 squares of RCC house therein
was existing at the time of its purchase. Here, the accused
is not disputing the construction cost of the 1 st floor at
Rs.2,96,550/-, the 2nd floor at Rs.65,196/- so also the
compound wall at the cost of Rs.90,552/-. The only
dispute is the construction cost of the ground floor at
Rs.3,16,320/-.
19 Spl. C.C.312/2017
23.1. According to the accused, the 1 st and 2nd
floors were constructed upon the old existing building.
His further dispute is the cost of solar connection on the
ground that, it was obtained in the year 2015 subsequent
to the check period. With this, he sought for overall
deduction of Rs.3,42,320/-. But as admitted by him at
para-4 of his evidence, he spent Rs.6-7 lakhs to construct
the house. This itself disentitles him for deduction of
Rs.3,42,320/-. He is not disputing that, the duplex house
was found in the area of 30 x 20 sq.feet. Thus, it is evident
to accept the prosecution stand that, the duplex house was
constructed after demolition of the existing 2 square RCC
structure. Therefore the defence that, the prosecution has
not placed any material to prove the demolition bears no
base. In other words, the construction of the ground floor
+ 2 floors including the compound wall afresh at the cost of
Rs.8,16,872/- stands proved. So far as the solar
connection is concerned, it’s reference does not find place
in the search mahazar at Ex.P10 as rightly noticed by the
learned defence counsel. This implies the absence of solar
connection as on the date of raid. Thus the defence to the
extent of solar connection stands established. Therefore, if
Rs.26,000/- is deducted out of Rs.8,42,872/-, the total
construction cost would be Rs.8,16,872/-.
24. Item No.9: Admittedly, the accused has
purchased the Toyota Qualis car bearing No.KA 04 MD
20 Spl. C.C.312/2017
7218 on 8.10.2012 in the name of his wife from Dw.5 Sri.
Bhanuprakash the 2nd purchaser. According to the
prosecution, the accused has purchased it for
Rs.4,15,000/-. As a counter, the accused says that, it was
for Rs.1,25,000/-only as declared in Schedule-14(c) at
Ex.D5. Thus, the difference amount Rs.2,90,000/- is in
dispute. Here, prosecution relies on the report at Ex.P48
dated 22.7.2015. Pw.16 Sri. C. Hemanth Kumar the
Regional Transport Officer deposes that, he got valued the
vehicle and the report through the Motor vehicle inspector
Sri. Rajkumar. But, the prosecution has not examined the
author to prove the contents of the report. Admittedly, this
car was of the year 2007. The following contents of Ex.P48
reveals the unscientific method adopted by its author to fix
the value which cannot be accepted.
ದಿನಾಂಕ 31-12-2006 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಹನದ ಮೌಲ್ಯ ರೂ.9,30,640/-
ಆಗಿದ್ದು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ 8-10-2012 ರವರೆಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 7 ವರ್ಷ 10 ತಿಂಗಳು
ಆಗಿದ್ದು , ಅಂದರೆ ಅದರ ಅರ್ಧ ಆಯಸ್ಸು ಮುಗಿದಂತಾಗಿದ್ದು , ಸದರಿ
ವಾಹನದ ಬೆಲೆ ಸುಮಾರು ರೂ.4,15,000/- ಆಗಬಹುದೆಂದು
ಊಹಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
24.1. Thus, valuation on the guess work without
verifying the mileage, condition of the vehicle etc. is
meaningless. Under the circumstance and in the absence
of convincing evidence to corroborate the prosecution
stand, the ocular evidence of the vendor Pw.16 that, he
sold the car for Rs.1,25,000/- probabalize the evidence of
21 Spl. C.C.312/2017
the accused and inspires to rely. In other words, the
purchase of the car for Rs.1,25,000/- has to accept and
thereby the difference amount of Rs.2,90,000/- needs to
deduct. Most unfortunate is that, the I.O. is seen to have
not considered the fuel expenses and the maintenance
charges of this vehicle from the date of purchase till the
end of check period.
25. Item No.13: As per the statement of accounts at
Ex.P37, the accused was the holder of the account bearing
No.1218010006519 at Vijaya Bank, Vidyanagara Branch.
It is not in dispute that, he had maintained the balance
therein at Rs.66,647/- as on 5.8.2014 therein. The I.O.
claims to have considered it as assets of the accused. But
the counter of the accused is that, his salary of Rs.8,357/-
for the month of July-2014 credited into his account
cannot be considered to be an asset as on the date of
registration of the case. With this, he sought for its
deduction. But the defence as such is unacceptable for the
reason that, the salary for the month of July-2014 covers
by the check period. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere
with the decision of the I.O. on this count.
26. Item No.19 and 20: These items are in respect of
186.6 gms. of golden ornaments worth Rs.2,96,000/- and
500 gms. of the silver worth Rs.20,000/- admittedly found
in the possession of the accused. These details can be
seen at page-27 and 28 of the I.O. report at Ex.P59.
22 Spl. C.C.312/2017
According to the I.O., he got assessed these articles
through a goldsmith by name Sri. Bhagwan from the
Mahalakshmi Jewelleries at Chikkajala village. But, the
appraiser is not a witness in this case though a signatory
to the search mahazar at Ex.P10. Here, the defence of the
learned counsel is that, the appraiser has baselessly
valued the articles without excluding the wax, stone,
examining the quality and the age of the gold etc. assumes
the considerable force since no corroborating evidence are
placed by the prosecution.
26.1. The counsel for the accused contends that,
180 gms. golden ornaments and silver plate of 500 gms.
were gifted to the accused during his marriage by his
parents in law. As admitted in the cross-examination at
para-101 as if the accused has furnished the information
to that extent in his declaration in Schedule-12(A) at
Ex.D5 and the statement of his wife. Even the
prosecution has not placed the evidence to prove date of
acquisition of these articles. The benefit of this situation
shall go to the accused. In other words, there exists no
reason to rule out the acquisition of these articles by way
of customary gifts during the marriage. Thus, the
acquisition of remaining 6.06 gms. of gold worth
Rs.9,640/- at the rate of Rs.1,590.75 per gram as admitted
by the accused is to believe. Therefore, Rs.3,16,000/- has
to be deducted as sought for by the accused.
23 Spl. C.C.312/2017
27. Item No.21: The household articles found in the
house of the accused during the search as detailed in the
mahazar at Ex.P10 is not in dispute. Therefore, the
evidence of the pancha witness Pw.4 Sri. Ramachandra
needs no discussion to that extent. But the value of
articles fixed by the I.O. at Rs.3,38,395/- for reasons
assigned in page-29 of his report at Ex.P59 is in question.
The accused has relied on the Schedule-14(A) (Ex.D4 and
5) to contend that, he acquired the articles worth
Rs.92,620/- only. The rest of articles worth Rs.2,45,775/-
claims to have received through the inheritance. Of
course, Pw.4 may not have spoken in his evidence as to the
method adopted to value the articles. But the evidence of
Pw.12 that, on the basis of the information given by the
accused, the value of the articles was fixed in the presence
of witnesses is not under the challenge. Admittedly, the
accused is also a signatory to the mahazar but not opposed
the valuation at the spot. Moreover, he has not specified
as to what are all articles he inherited except stating at
para-8 of his evidence that, ಮದುವೆಯಾದ 2 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ
ಪತ್ನಿಯ ತಂದೆ ಟಿ.ವಿ., fridge ನ್ನು , ಪಾತ್ರೆ ಸಾಮಾನುಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮದುವೆ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಒಂದು ಮರದ ಮಂಚ, ಒಂದು ಟೀಪಾಯಿ, ಒಂದು
ಟೇಬಲ್ ಎರಡು ಖುರ್ಚಿಗಳು ಕೊಡಿಸಿದರು. In fact, this portion of his
evidence contradicts the defence of inheritance.
27.1. However, the valuation fixed by Pw.12 and the
I.O. is not with the assistance of any expert nor is based on
any documents. Thus obviously, the valuation is based on
24 Spl. C.C.312/2017
the guess work as rightly argued by the learned defence
counsel. In the circumstance, the possibility of inflating
the value is bound to have taken place. Therefore and
having considered the purchase of these articles over a
period of time every now and then, I am of the opinion that,
the benefit of 30% reduction i.e. Rs.1,01,518/- would meet
the ends of justice. Thus, Rs.2,36,877/- is the value of
the household articles. In view of my findings herein
before on the disputed items, the following is their
respective proved value.
Sl.No. 2 9 13 19 & 20 21
Rs.12,55,036/-
In 8,16,872/- 1,25,000/ 66,647/ 9,640/- 2,36,877/
(Rs.) - - -
Rs.35,05,894/-
+the value of the Admitted assets
Total: Rs.47,60,930/-
28. The following 39 different heads are the
expenditure details of the accused and his family during
the check period as per the investigation report marked at
Ex.P59. [ Table No. II (Expenditure) ]
Sl. Amount (in
Particulars
No. Rs.)
Registration and stamp duty incurred
23 towards Site bearing No.54 situated at 33,810.00
Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, Bengaluru.
Registration and stamp duty incurred
24 towards Site bearing No.28 situated at 33,070.00
Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, Bengaluru.
Registration and stamp duty incurred
25 towards Site bearing No.29 situated at 33,110.00
Chikkajala village, Jala hobli, Bengaluru.
25 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Registration and stamp duty incurred
towards Site bearing No.30 and 31
26 56,240.00
situated at Chikkajala village, Jala hobli,
Bengaluru.
Registration and stamp incurred towards
Site bearing No.26 situated at
27 40,290.00
Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North
taluk.
Registration and stamp incurred towards
Site bearing No.27 situated at
28 1,085-00
Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North
taluk.
Registration and stamp incurred towards
29 Site bearing No.48B situated at 20,200.00
Kudaregere village, Bengaluru.
Property tax paid for the house at
30 546.00
Chikkajala
Property Tax paid for the site at
31 142.00
Chikkajala
Payment made towards R.D. Account
32 36,000.00
No.121802201000038
Payment made towards R.D. Account
33 36,000.00
No.121802201000036
Payment made towards R.D. Account
34 36,000.00
No.121802201000037
Payment made towards LIC Policy
35 56,504.00
No.615269524
Payment made towards LIC Policy
36 1,04,670.00
No.615836134
Payment made towards LIC Policy
37 1,00,000.00
No.615625647
Payment made towards LIC Policy
38 45,000.00
No.616216129
Payment made towards LIC Policy
39 45,000.00
No.61616344
Payment made towards LIC Policy
40 51,615.00
No.615836135
Payment made towarwds LIC Policy
41 1,20,000.00
No.615491148
Payment made towards LIC Policy
42 30,000.00
No.615491482
Payment made towards Insurance Policy
43 18,832.00
No.P/141126/01/2014/006457
Payment made towards Insurance Policy
44 3,600.00
No.P/141126/01/2014/000734
Payment made towards electricity bearing
45 12,659.00
R.R.No D.V.L.44372
46 Payment made towards water 0.00
26 Spl. C.C.312/2017
consumption
Vehicle Insurance paid towards Toyata
47 26,777.00
Qualis car bearing No.KA-04-MD-7218
Maintenance of Honda Splendor two
48 1,04,166.00
wheeler bearing No.KA-50-E-3578
49 Income tax 0.00
50 Domestic expenses 10,30,718.00
51 Payment made towards gas cylinder 11,827.00
52 Education expenses of daughter of AGO 430.00
Education expenses incurred for the 1 st
53 1,34,546.00
son of AGO
Education expenses incurred for the 2nd
54 1,89,620.00
son of AGO
Medical expenses incurred for the wife of
55 25,564.00
AGO
56 Expenses towards birth day party 1,800.00
Payment made towards membership for
57 1,000.00
Yogi Narayana Studies
Expenses incurred towards purchase of
58 19,371.00
tyres to Qualis vehicle
Expenses incurred towards purchase of
59 2,340.00
cycle
Expenses incurred towards purchase of
60 6,499.00
DVD
61 Payment made to ISCON Temple 1,200.00
Total 24,70,231.00
The accused is not disputing the correctness of the
expenditure at Item No.23 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 60 and 61
worth Rs.11,15,023/- considered by the I.O. His dispute is
only with regard to the computation of the expenditure
pertaining to Item No.48, 50, 54 to 57 and 59 worth
Rs.13,55,208/- Therefore, the Item wise disputed
expenditure has to decide based on the available evidence.
28.1. Item No.48 : is relating to the expenses spent
by the accused towards the fuel and maintenance of his
motor bike bearing No.KA 50 – E – 3857. Not in dispute
that, 84,963 Kms. ridden by him during the check period.
27 Spl. C.C.312/2017
The prosecution has relied on the RTO report marked at
Ex.P62 to justify the following expenses considered by the
I.O. for reasons in page 43 and 44 of his final report
marked at Ex.P59.
1. Fuel Expenses for 84,963
Kms
on the basis of average
mileage at 60 KMPL and price
– Rs. 89,104-00
at Rs.63.15 per litre upto
1411 Litres
2. Maintenance charges :
a) Oil Cost of Rs.1250 at the
cost of Rs.250/- each during
Four free services upto 11500
Kms.
b) Rs.8400/- for 14 times
service at the rate of Rs.600/-
each
c) Rs.2200+550 for Replace-
ment of Tyres and Battery
respectively for One time upto
84,963 Kms.
d) Rs.400/- for the
Replacement of Break shoes
e) Rs.2262/- for the Rs. 15,062/-
Insurance
TOTAL Rs.1,04,166/-
28.2. Whereas, the accused disputes the report of the
R.T.O. at Ex.P62 as if based on assumptions and on the
28 Spl. C.C.312/2017
ground that, its author is not examined. He put-forth the
defence that, his bike was giving 80.6 KMPL. The total
consumption of fuel is 1058 Litres at the average cost of
Rs.58/- per Litre. Therefore, he claims to have spent
Rs.61,364/- only towards the total expenditure. Hence, he
sought for Rs.39,740/- to be deducted out of the
expenditure considered by the I.O. His further defence is
that, the prosecution has not placed any evidence to prove
the replacement of Tyres, battery, and break shoes. Here,
admittedly the estimation of expenditure computed by the
I.O. is on the approximate basis. The author of Ex.P62
may not have been examined. But, it would not be a
ground to discard the totality of Ex.P62. It is of course, the
rates of fuel in the relevant years commencing from 2006
to 2014 specified in the report does not tally with the
actual rates of Rs.43.5, 43, 45.5, 44.7, 48, 58.5, 65.6,
66.09 and 72.26 respectively during the said period as can
be seen in the copy of the price list furnished by the
learned defence counsel. Thus the average price would be
Rs.58/- per litre but not Rs.63.15 as indicated in the
report at Ex.P62.
28.3. Generally, the average mileage depends upon
the expertise of the rider, the road condition, the age of the
vehicle and its condition. Therefore, the defence contention
of 80.6 Km. per litre is unacceptable as the KMPL goes on
decreasing as the time passes and the age of the vehicle
grows. In view of the same, the average mileage at 60 KMPL
29 Spl. C.C.312/2017
considered in the report at Ex.P62 cannot be found with
fault. Thus, the distance of 84,963 Km / 60 = 1411 Litres
X 58 would be Rs.81,838/-. Therefore, the entitlement of
the accused to get deduct Rs.7,266/- out of the expenses
of fuel is to accept. Here, the accused is not disputing the
Insurance of Rs.2,262/-, the oil cost of Rs.1,250/- paid by
him at the rate of Rs.250/- each of four free services upto
11,500 Kms, 14 times service at the cost of Rs.600/- each
in all Rs.8,400/-. But, his only defence is that, there is no
evidence to prove the replacement of Tyres, battery and
break shoes etc. In this context, the age of the vehicle, the
total distance of 84,963 Kms run by it over a period of Nine
years from 2006 to 2014 itself is evident to indicate the
requirement of time to time service and replacement of
spare parts so as to ensure the running condition of the
vehicle. Pertinent to note is, the non inclusion of the
lifetime tax and registration charges paid in respect of the
motor bike belongs to the accused. Having regard to the
above observations, I am to hold that, the expenditure of
Rs.1,01,904/- considered by the I.O. stands modified as
Rs.81,838/- towards the fuel and maintenance charges of
the bike + the maintenance charges of Rs.15,062/- in all
Rs.96,900/-
29. Item No.50: is in respect of per capita monthly
expenditure of the accused and his family during the check
period. The prosecution relies on the report at Ex.P21 (page
458-463 of Book-III) issued by Pw.11 Sri.K.N. Kantharaju
30 Spl. C.C.312/2017
the Deputy Director of Statistics Department to justify the
total expenditure of Rs.10,30,718/- considered by the I.O.
for reasons as can be seen at page 45 and 46 of Ex.P59. In
the evidence, Pw.11 supports the correctness of the
expenditure. Admittedly, the information provided by the
I.O. vide Ex.P22 was the basis for Pw.11 to compute the
expenditure and prepare the report at Ex.P21. Personally,
he has not gathered any information relating to the life,
food style of the accused and his family comprising of
himself, his wife, a daughter and two sons. Interestingly,
Pw.1 admits to have adopted the general family income and
expenditure survey 2009 to compute the expenditure for
the check period commencing from 12.08.1993 to
07.08.2014. This is one of the defect on his part.
29.1. Now the defence of the accused is that, the
report at Ex.P21 cannot be relied upon to accept the
correctness of the expenditure opined therein. That apart,
he points out certain defects in the report. Admittedly, the
accused married on 01.05.1994. His wife gave birth to a
female child on 11.08.1995. The first male child on
05.02.1997 and second male child on 26.02.2000. But,
Pw.1 is seen to have considered the expenditure of the wife
and three children from 1995 itself on par with adults. In
this regard, the defence contention is that, the wife of the
accused went to her parents house two months prior to
each delivery and returned to the house of the accused
only after five months respectively. Therefore, according to
31 Spl. C.C.312/2017
him, when the wife of the accused went to her parents
house for the second delivery, the first child also was with
her. Similarly, when she went for third delivery the first
and second children were remained with her in the parents
house. This truth is not disputed by the prosecution.
Thus, the computation of per capita expenditure in respect
of the wife of the accused and his three children on par
with the adults during the period of their absence with the
accused is obviously wrong.
29.2. The learned counsel for the accused relies on
the authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported as 1963 SCC
OnLine 48 to justify his contention that, only 1/3rd net
salary of the accused should be considered towards the
domestic expenses. No doubt, the same principle of law is
followed by Hon’ble High Court in the case of V.D. Kurta
Koti Vs. State by CBI/ACB in Crl.Appeal No.43/2011. On
the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends
that, before extending the benefit of liberal view as
observed therein, the court has to consider as to whether
the accused is solely getting the income from his salary or
otherwise? Here, it is not in dispute that, the total net
salary of the accused during the check period is
Rs.6,10,488/-. His family was comprising with 5 units
(members). Out of the net salary, it’s 1/3rd would be
Rs.2,03,495/-. On this basis, the accused is seeking the
deduction of Rs.8,27,223/- out of Rs.10,30,718/-. Now the
32 Spl. C.C.312/2017
fact to appreciate is that, while facing the allegation of
disproportionate asset, the accused claims to have derived
the income not only from his salary but also from the
agriculture and real estate business. The domestic
expenses of a middle class family comprising of 5 members
with moderate life and food style at the cost of
Rs.2,03,495/- during the check period cannot be expected
even if the liberal view is taken.
29.3. Therefore, it is very difficult to apply 1/3rd net
income principle to compute the domestic expenses in the
peculiar facts of the case on hand. In other words, the
proposition of law in the afore-stated authorities would not
justify the defence stand. In the light of the above
discussion and having taken the defects in the domestic
expenses report, I am inclined to deduct 40% expenditure
i.e. Rs.4,12,287/- out of Rs.10,30,718/-. So that, it could
be a reasonable justification. Therefore, Rs.6,18,431/- is
considered towards per capita monthly expenditure of the
family.
30. Item No.54: is in respect of education expenses
of his son Narahari Krishna at Rs.1,89,620/- considered
by the I.O. But, it gets contradicted with the evidence of
the school Head Master Pw.10 Sri. H.G. Mahantesh and
the document issued by him vide Ex.P20. Admittedly the
accused has paid only Rs.40,000/- for the 5 th standard and
Rs.55/- for the 9th standard in all Rs.40,055/- only. The
33 Spl. C.C.312/2017
remaining amount of Rs.1,49,565/- is seen to have borne
by the social welfare department. Therefore, the
expenditure considered by the I.O. is found at wrong. In
view of the same, the entitlement of the accused to get
deduct Rs.1,49,565/- out of Rs.1,89,620/-. As a result,
Rs.40,055/- is held to be actual educational expenses.
31. Item No.55: It is in respect of the medical
expenses pertaining to the wife of the accused to the extent
of Rs.25,564/-. The I.O. deposed to have considered it as
expenditure based on the information with the supporting
documents (page 515 – 522 of Book No.2) at Ex.P45 issued
by the Baptist hospital, Bengaluru. His reasons therefor
can be seen at page-48 and 49 of Ex.P59. The learned
defence counsel disputes this expenses on the ground
that, the author of the document at Ex.P45 is not
examined. His 2nd ground is that, this amount is already
covered under the invisible expenses at Sl.No.15 of Ex.P21.
With this, he sought for reduction of the entire amount. In
this context, the contention of the learned Public
Prosecutor that, the visible expenses would not be covered
by the invisible / general medical expenses of the family.
His contention as such assumes some force to look at.
Here, the accused is not disputing that, the document at
Ex.P45 does not belongs to the medical treatment took by
his wife at Baptist hospital. Therefore, mere non-
examination of it’s author is not a ground to suppress the
truth emanating from the official documents of the
34 Spl. C.C.312/2017
hospital. Thus, the visbile medical expenses in particular
would not be covered by invisible expenses. There exists
no reasons to find fault with the I.O. in considering these
expenses separately. Hence, the amount of Rs.25,564/-
considered by the I.O. would not invite any interference by
the court.
32. Item No.56: is the Birthday expenses of
Rs.1,800/- pertaining to the children of the accused. In
the evidence, the accused admits to have declared this
amount at page-54 of Ex.D4 (schedule-18). Therefore, no
reason exists to find fault at the I.O. in considering it as
the visible expenditure. In other words, the defence of the
accused that, it covers by an invisible expenses would not
sustain.
33. Item No.57: is the permanent membership fee of
Rs.1,000/- paid by the accused in Sri. Yogi Narayana
Study (indology) centre at Bengaluru in order to get the
monthly magazine called ” ಮಲ್ಲಾ ರ”. The I.O. had considered
it as an expenditure. But the document at Ex.P66
produced by the prosecution reveals that, the check period
does not cover this payment dtd.17.10.2014. Hence, no
reasons but to deduct this amount from the expenditure of
the accused.
34. Item No.59: is the value of the bicycle at
Rs.2,340/- considered by the I.O. on the basis of the
35 Spl. C.C.312/2017
receipt dtd.30.6.2005 marked at Ex.P68. On the contrary,
the cross-examination admission of the I.O. at para-116
that: ”ಮನೆ ಶೋಧನಾ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೈಸಿಕಲ್ ಬೆಲೆಯನ್ನು
ರೂ.1000/- ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ಅಂತಿಮ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ
ರೂ.1000/- ವನ್ನು ಕಡಿತಗೊಳಿಸಿ, ರೂ.1,340/- ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.” clearly justifies the defence contention that,
Rs.1,000/- out of Rs.2,340/- has to be deducted. In other
words, the expenditure of this item is Rs.1,340/-. With
this and for the discussion hereinbefore, I am to indicate
the following proved value of the disputed item-wise
expenditure:
Sl.No 48 50 54 55 56 57 59
. Rs.7,84.090/-
In 96900 61843 4005 2556 180 Nil 1340
Rs.11,15,023 /-
(Rs.) 1 5 4 0
+the value of Admitted expenditure
Total: Rs.1899113/-
35. Following are the income details of the accused
and his family as per the prosecution.
Sl. No. Particulars Value (in Rs.)
Agricultural income from the ancestral
62 1,18,331.00
property of AGO
63 Salary income 6,81,588.00
Maturity income from the R.D.Account
64 39,445.00
No.121802201000038
Maturity income from the R.D.Account
65 39,445.00
No.121802201000036
66 Maturity income from the R.D.Account 39,445.00
36 Spl. C.C.312/2017
No.121802201000037
LIC Policy No.61586134 (Maturity
67 1,45,999.00
amount)
LIC Policy No.6162129 (Maturity
68 49,241.00
amount)
LIC Policy No.61616344 (Maturity
69 49,241.00
amount)
LIC Policy No.615836135 (Maturity
70 72,599.00
amount)
LIC Policy No.615491148 (Maturity
71 1,13,831.00
amount)
LIC Policy No.615491482 (Maturity
72 30,336.00
amount)
73 Loan from T. Munikrishnaiah 0.00
Loan borrowed for by the wife of AGO
74 2,00,000.00
from T.Narasimhaiah
75 Loan from Dasappa 0.00
76 Loan from T. Venkatappa 0.00
9,000.00
77 Drought relief fund
Total 15,88,501.00
The income of Rs.13,88,501/- at Item No.62 to 72 and 77
is not in dispute except item No.73 to 76 for
Rs.40,00,000/-. According to the accused, his wife Smt.
Venkatalakshmamma had borrowed this amount in the
form of hand loans from his relatives as per the following
details.
Item No. Name of the lender Amount (in lakhs)
73 T. Munikrishnaiah 16,00,000/-
74 T. Narasimhaiah 14,00,000/-
75 T. Dasappa 5,00,000/-
76 T. Venkatappa 5,00,000/-
Total 40,00,000/- Now the grievance of the accused is that, despite his
declaration in schedule-6 and affidavits submitted by the
37 Spl. C.C.312/2017
respective vendors, the I.O. has not considered the same.
Hence, sought for to add it to his income account.
35.1. It is not in dispute that, Sri. T. Dasappa the
father of Dw.2 Sri. Srinivasa, Dw.3 Sri. T. Munikrishnaiah,
Dw.4 Sri. T. Narasimhaiah, Dw.7 Sri. T. Venkatappa and
the mother of the accused are the children of common
parents. Needless to say that, the burden of proving the
alleged hand loans cannot be shifted upon the prosecution.
Rather, it is for the accused to prove on the strength of his
own evidence. Therefore, the item wise detail discussion as
hereunder with reference to the available evidence on
record is a matter of necessity.
36. Item No.73: Admittedly, Dw.3 T. Munikrishnaiah
is a retired Assistant sub-inspector of police. He supports
the evidence of the accused and asserts the hand loan of
Rs.10 lakh in the year 2010 and Rs.6 lakh in the year
2013 in all Rs.16 lakh as if lent by him to the wife of the
accused. According to him, out of his retirement benefits
and the income from the Sericulture, he lent the loan.
Whereas, the accused contradicts the same with a different
version as if Dw.3 has sold his immovable property and
lent the loan. Thus, the source for Dw.3 to pay the hand
loan is remained in question. Dw.3 deposed that, he was
possessing 4 acres of agricultural land in Sy.No.46/13
and 46/17 of Hejjala village. But he himself contradicts
the same at para-2 of his evidence stating that, 4 ಎಕರೆ
38 Spl. C.C.312/2017
ಜಮೀನಿನ ಪೈಕಿ ನನಗೆ 1 ಎಕರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಬಂದಿದೆ. Still failed to produce
the document to that extent.
36.1. While responding to the court question, Dw.3
answered to have got remitted his retirement benefit of
Rs.18 lakh in the year 2007 to his bank account. He has
withdrawn the amount in the year 2010 from the bank
account and lent the loan to the wife of the accused. But,
no documents are placed either to prove the receipt of
service benefits or to establish the amount withdrawn from
the bank to pay the hand loan.
37. Item No.74: According to the accused, he had
borrowed the hand loan of Rs.5 lakh cash in the year 2008,
Rs.4 lakh cash in the year 2010, Rs.5 lakh cash in the year
2014 and Rs.2 lakh through a cheque by his wife from
Dw.4 Sri. T. Narasimhaiah. Whereas, the evidence of Dw.4
is that, he paid Rs.5 lakh cash in the year 2008, Rs.4 lakh
in the year 2011, Rs.5 lakh in the year 2014 and Rs.2 lakh
through a cheque in all Rs.16 lakh to both the accused and
his wife. This witness has been subjected to the cross-
examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. Wherein,
he asserts to have sold his 2 acres 20 guntas of land in
Sy.No.89 of Doddajala village. He has kept the sale
proceeds in the account at Vijaya bank of Vidyanagara
branch. But no iota of document is placed before this
court to prove the amount drawn from the bank account so
39 Spl. C.C.312/2017
also the payment of the loan either to the accused or his
wife.
38. Item No.75: The accused deposes that, his wife
had borrowed the hand loan of Rs.1,25,000/- cash from
Sri. Dasappa in the year 2012 to purchase a Toyota Qualis
bearing No.KA 04 MD 7218 and Rs.4 lakh cash in the year
2013. Admittedly, Sri. Dasppa is no more. His son Dw.2
Sri. Srinivasa asserts as if his father paid Rs.2 lakh on
13.12.2012 and Rs.3 lakh on 18.12.2012, which indeed
uproots the evidence of the accused particularly, the
payment of Rs.1,25,000/- in 2012 and Rs.4 lakh in 2013.
No doubt, documents at Ex.D21 demonstrates not only
the acquisition of land of Dasappa by the KIADB, but also
the compensation paid through different installments
commencing from 2003 to 2007 and finally on 6.11.2012.
But, their oral inconsistent and contradictory evidence
would not assume any value in the absence of documents
to prove the loan. Rather makes clear the false story set
up by them for the purpose of this case.
39. Item No.76 : Dw.7 is T. Venkatappa. His
evidence is that, 15 years ago his brother Dw.3 has sold
the ancestral joint family land of 4 acres in Sy.No.89/3 at
Doddajala village. Out of which, Rs.60 lakh was given to
his share. He kept the said amount in a bank. He
withdrew from the bank and paid Rs.1 + 4 lakhs in the
year 2010 and 2013 respectively to the wife of the accused
40 Spl. C.C.312/2017
for construction of the house. Whereas, the evidence of the
accused does not reveal the loan claims to have paid in the
year 2010 and 2013 by Dw.7. Similarly, the alleged loan of
Rs.2 lakh and Rs.3 lakh in the year 2010 emanating from
the evidence of the accused is not corroborated by Dw.7.
No material is before the court to prove the loan
transactions.
39.1. It is true that, the I.O. in his evidence admits
the declaration of loans in schedule No.6 subsequent to the
raid submitted by the accused during the course of an
investigation. Similarly, affidavits filed by Dw.3, 4, 7 and
the father of Dw.2 claiming to have lent the loan to the
wife of the accused. Needless to say that, the schedule or
the affidavits as such much less the documents at Ex.D19
and D20 does not assume the place of proof to establish
the loans. They may be relatives. But the relationship as
such, would not be basis to believe the huge loan
transactions to the extent of Rs.40 lakh without any proof.
Even nothing is there to prove its partial repayment as
deposed by Dw.7. The noteworthy is the non-examination
of Smt. Venkatalakshmamma the wife of the accused who
allegedly borrowed the loan.
39.2 No doubt, the accused has produced the sale
deed dtd.25.6.2008 at Ex.D19 so also the sale deed
dtd.12.9.2009 at Ex.D20 to show that, Dw.3, 4 and others
have sold the immovable properties. The perusal of these
41 Spl. C.C.312/2017
documents reveals that, they have sold the said properties
for family necessity and domestic problem including their
commitments. But these documents cannot be basis to
form the opinion that, they have sold the property only for
the purpose of lending the loan to the wife of the accused.
In the light of the above and in the absence of convincing
evidence, an adverse inference has to draw against the
accused. These circumstances strengthens the contention
of the learned Public Prosecutor that, Dw.2, 3, 4 and 7
being relatives have deposed falsehood without any basis
only to protect the interest of the accused in the case.
Therefore, there is no option but to indicate the failure of
the accused to prove the hand loans of Rs. 40 lakh as
hereunder:
Item 73 74 75 76 Total
No.
In Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Rs.
Total admitted expenditure Rs.13,88,501.00
Left out income as per the accused
40. According to the learned defence counsel, the
I.O. has not considered the following left out income of the
accused and his family members.
Sl.No Description Amount
. (in Rs.)
1 Periodic interest from the account 61,175.00
No.848010110005999 in the name of
the accused at Bank of India
42 Spl. C.C.312/2017
2 Periodic interest from the account 1,06,712.0
No.121801010006519 in the name of 0
the accused at Vijaya Bank
3 Periodic interest from the account 972.00
No.121801011001439 in the name of
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma the wife of
the accused at Vijaya Bank
4 LIC maturity amount 30,314.00
57,286.00
5 The other sources of income of the 9,73,000.0
accused 0
41. Left out income at Sl.No.1 to 4 : Ex.P63 and 37
are the statements of bank account pertaining to Sl.No.1,
2 and 4 respectively. Ex.P64 is the statement of account in
respect of Sl.No.3. Admittedly, the amount shown at
Sl.No.1, 2 and 3 is the periodically accrued interest and the
amount at Sl.No.4 is the periodic insurance amount
redeemed got credited to the respective accounts. The I.O.
in his evidence at para-119 to 123 admits to have not
considered the said amount as the income of the accused.
Therefore, I find no necessity of further discussion to
accept the entitlement of the accused and to hold that, the
total left out income of Rs.2,56,459/- pertaining to item
No.1 to 4 stands proved.
41.1. Sl.No.5: In his written arguments, the learned
defence counsel submits, as if the accused had received
Rs.9,73,000/- in the form of commission from the real
43 Spl. C.C.312/2017
estate business during 2007-08 to 2014-15. According to
him, the accused has declared this income in schedule-5
and affidavits of persons who paid the commission
submitted before the I.O. No doubt, the declaration as
such and submissions of affidavits is also admitted by the
I.O. in his evidence at para-128 to 134. The defence
witness Dw.1 Sri. K.H. Manjunath is one of the relative of
the accused. His evidence reveals that, he sold 2 acres 30
guntas of land at Kuduregere village belongs to his grand
father late Venkatappa to M/s.Rasasri developers in the
year 2008-09 under the mediator ship of the accused and
paid him the commission of Rs.85,000/-.
41.2. Except an affidavit marked at Ex.D6, no
documents are placed by this witness either to prove the
sale of the land or payment of the commission. His
admissions in the cross-examination that, ನನ್ನ ತಾತನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಇರುವ ಜಮೀನಿನ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂಬರ್ ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ . ನನ್ನ ತಾತ ವೆಂಕಟಪ್ಪ ನವರ
ಮರಣದ ನಂತರ ಜಮೀನು ನನ್ನ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಪ್ಪ ಮುನಿಶಾಮಪ್ಪ , ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಮುನಿಶಾಮಪ್ಪ
ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಹನುಮಂತಪ್ಪ ನವರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಆಗಿತ್ತು . In fact, he
has not produced the document to prove the transfer of
khata as such and its inheritance by his father and others.
In view of the above, the sale of immovable property and
payment of the commission to the accused has to rule out.
41.3. Dw.6 Sri. Kumar K.H. is another relative of the
accused. According to him, he sold 30 guntas of his land
in Sy.No.117/3 at Kudregere village to M/s.Rasasri
44 Spl. C.C.312/2017
developers with the help of the accused and paid the
commission of Rs.1.25 lakh to 1.50 lakh. His ocular
evidence as such is not supported by any documents
except an affidavit filed by him before the I.O. The
position of this witness is no better than Dw.1. Therefore,
the payment of commission cannot said to have proved.
41.4. Dw.8. Sri R.K. Prasad states that, he was
working as an accountant in Jaji developers and receiving
the monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. According to him, the
accused has helped the Jaji developers to purchase 7
acres 20 guntas of land from one Narayana in the year
2008 under an agreement. He says, as if the Jaji
developers have paid the commission of Rs,25,000/- each
to the accused on 4 occasions in the month of April-2014.
Rs.50,000/- in 2 installments in the month of May-2014
and Rs.25,000/- each in the months of June and July-
2014 in all Rs.2 lakh under the confirmation letters at
Ex.D10 to 17.
41.5. Admittedly, Dw.8 is not the author of Ex.D10
to 17 nor has paid the so-called commission to the
accused. The accused has not made any effort to examine
the author of Ex.D10 to 17 which contains the vague
sentence that, ‘the commission paid to Krishnappa
S/o.Chikkanarasimhaiah for the services rendered by him’.
There exists no clarification as to what kind of service the
accused has rendered being the public servant. The fact
45 Spl. C.C.312/2017
to appreciate is that, when the sale transaction took place
in the year 2008, one has to think the possibility of paying
the commission in the year 2014. Now the question is, if
really the sale took place as deposed by Dw.8, there exists
no difficulty either to produce the related documents or to
examine either of the parties thereto. Very interesting is
that, Dw.8 has not placed any material to prove his
employment as an accountant at Jaji developers. There is
no reason for him to give the evidence on behalf of the
developers without any authority.
41.6. It is not the defence of the accused throughout the
proceedings that, he was doing the real estate business
and receiving the commission. For the first time, the
learned defence counsel is seen to have introduced this
story in his written arguments. In fact, at para-3 of his
evidence the accused deposed as if his wife was doing the
real estate business since 1998 to 2010 and getting the
commission. The so-called wife is not examined in this case
nor Dw.1, 6 and 8 whispered anything to prove it. These
are circumstances to say that, the accused failed to prove
the income of Rs.9,73,000/- from the real estate business.
Thus, the following is the proved left out income in respect
of Sl. No.1 to 5.
46 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Total
No.
In 61175 106712 972 87600 Nil 256459
Rs.
+ Admitted income of the accused 1388501
Total Rs.1644960
42. The overall discussion with reference to oral and
documentary evidence hereinbefore conclusively
demonstrates the assets, expenditure and income of the
accused during the check period from 12.8.1993 to
7.8.2014 and disproportionate to his known source of an
income as hereunder:
Heads Amount (in Rs.) A. Assets acquired 47,60,930.00 B. Expenditure 18,99,113.00 C. Total assets and expenditure 66,60,043.00 D. Income 16,44,960.00 E. Assets disproportionate 50,15,083.00
43. Thus, A+B = C – D = 404.87% of the assets
disproportionate to the known sources of an income
acquired by the accused as a public servant during the
check period stands successfully established by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused
failed to give satisfactory accounts to accept his defence
that, he is an innocent. Thus, the foundational facts
proved by the prosecution exposes the necessary
47 Spl. C.C.312/2017
ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention Corruption
(Amended) Act, 1988. In other words, the accused is found
guilty. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C,
the accused Sri. Krishnappa S/o. Sri. Chikka
Narasimhaiah is convicted for the offence
defined under Section 13(1)(e) and punishable
under section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bonds shall stands cancelled
forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.1 directly on computer,
computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2025)Sd/- 27/1/25
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA)
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to be
imposed against him in the presence of his counsel and the
learned Public Prosecutor. The accused submits that, he is
an innocent. He sought for the leniency in the matter of
imposing sentence on the ground that, he is having
children and his wife is suffering from different ailments.
48 Spl. C.C.312/2017
According to him, he is the only person to take care of
them. The plea of the accused that, he is an innocent
cannot be accepted for reasons and observations made I
the body of the judgment. Since the offence stands
established under the Special enactment, the accused is
not entitle for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act. The conduct of the accused being the public servant
in illegally accumulating the assets disproportionate to his
known source of an income truly demands the stringent
punishment. So that, it could be a message to the public
servants of this nature involving in corrupt activities.
Hence, no question of extending the leniency would arise.
However, needless to say that, the offence is found to have
committed by the accused prior to the amendment to the
PC Act of 2018 come into force. Prior to the amended Act
2018, the punishment of imprisonment prescribed was not
less than 1 year but extendable upto 7 years. Thus, the
accused is liable for the punishment under the pre-
amended Act of 2018. With these observations, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The offender Sri. Krishnappa is sentenced to
undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,20,000/-
(Rupees fifty lakh twenty thousand) for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w.
Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption
49 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Act 1988. In default to pay the fine, he shall
undergo the simple imprisonment for a period
of 6 months.
The default sentence shall run separately.
Office is directed to furnish the true copy of
this judgment free of cost to the accused
forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.1 directly on computer,
computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2025)
Sd/- 27/1/25
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA)
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Dayananda
PW 2 : Nagaraja
PW 3 : B.N. Dwarakinath
PW 4 : Ramachandra K.R.
PW 5 : Krishnappa
PW 6 : Sadanandappa
PW 7 : S.V. Venkatesha gowda
PW 8 : B.V. Prameela
PW 9 : Ameena Bee
PW 10 : H.G. Mahantesh
PW 11 : K.N. Kantharaju
PW 12 : B. Vijaya kumar
PW 13 : Mustaq Ahamad
PW 14 : Naveen Kumar
PW 15 : M.P. Omkareshwari
PW 16 : G. Hemantha kumar
50 Spl. C.C.312/2017
PW 17 : Anil
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Copy of letter dt.14.3.2017 of CEO of
Bengaluru Zilla PanchayatEx P2 : Sanction order dtd.18.4.2017
Ex P2(a) : Signature of Pw.2Ex P3 : Letter of Chikkajala Panchayath office
dtd.20.8.2014
Ex P4 : Letter of Chikkajala Panchayath office
dtd.23.4.2015 & attested copy of M.R. &
KhataEx.P5 : Covering letter with details of service
particulars
Ex.P5(a) & : Signature of Pw.2
(b)
Ex P6 : Covering letter dtd.20.8.2014 with pay
details of the accused
Ex P6 (a) to : Signature of Pw.2
(c)
Ex P7 : Covering letter dtd.20.8.2014 with
survey No.72/3 document
Ex P7(a) : Signature of Pw.2Ex P8 : Covering letter with building valuation
report
Ex P8(a) : Signature of Pw.3Ex.P9 : Search warrant
Ex P9(a) : Signature of Pw.4
51 Spl. C.C.312/2017Ex.P10 : House search mahazar
Ex P10(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex P10(b) : Signature of Pw.12Ex P11 : Source report
Ex P11(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex P11(b) : Signature of Pw.12Ex P12 : Letter of Asst. Director of Agriculture
Bengaluru North & Agriculture report
Ex P12(a) : Signature of Pw.5Ex P13 : Letter of Range Forest Officer,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru dtd.11.1.2017
with report
Ex P13(a) : Signature of Pw.6Ex P14 : Letter addressed to the Principal, Sri
Jagaluru PU CollegeEx P15 : Letter of S.J. PU College dtd.12.9.2014
with enclosures
Ex P15(a) : Signature of Pw.7Ex P16 : Letter of I.O. dtd.6.9.2014
Ex P17 : Letter of Head Master, Govt. Higher
Primary School, Chikkajala, Bengaluru.
Ex P17(a) : Signature of Pw.8
Ex P18 : Letter of I.O. dtd.6.9.2014
Ex P19 : Report of Govt. High School, Chikkajala,
Bengaluru North Dist.
52 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex P19(a) : Signature of Pw.9
Ex P20 : I.O. requisition and covering letter of
Janaseva Vidhya Kendra with attested
copies of documents
Ex P20(a) : Signature of Pw.10
Ex P21 : Family food expenditure report
dtd.25.5.2016
Ex P21(a) : Signature of Pw.11
Ex P22 : I.O. letter and Form No.I & II
Ex P23 : Proceedings under Section 165 of Cr.P.C.
dtd.6.8.2014
Ex.P24 : FIR in Crime No.20/2014
Ex P24(a) : Signature of Pw.12
Ex P25 : Witness securing letter from Pre-
University Education
Ex P26 : Requisition letter for search warrant
Ex P27 : FIR in Crime No.48/2014 of Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru city
Ex P27(a) : Signature of Pw.13
Ex.P28 : Transfer corresponding papers
Ex.P29 : Covering letter dtd.18.9.2014
Ex.P30 : P.F. No.87/2014 of Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru city
Ex.P31 : Covering letter dtd.18.9.2014
Ex.P32 : LIC details dtd.12.8.2014
Ex.P33 : Sale deed, Registration charges details
dtd.14.8.2014
53 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex P33(a) : Certified copy of sale deed dtd.1.7.2010
in the name of wife of accused
Ex.P34 : Accused’s wife property sale deed, Tax
charges details
Ex.P34(a) : Certified copy of sale deed
dtd.31.10.2011
Ex.P35 : Site No.26 property sale deed and
charges details dtd.14.8.2014
Ex.P35(a) : Certified copy of sale deed dtd.29.8.2013
in respect of the accused
Ex.P36 : Site No.27 property sale deed, tax
charges details dtd.14.8.2014
Ex.P36(a) : Certified copy of Agreement to sell
dtd.26.6.2014 in respect of wife of the
accused
Ex.P37 : Vijaya Bank, Vidhya Nagar Branch
account details of AGO
Ex.P38 : Karnataka Bank S.B. Account details
Ex.P39 : BESCOM, Yelahanka sub-division Site
No.54 Electricity details
Ex.P40 : Post office Channapattana R.D. Account
details
Ex.P41 : Memo dated 30.8.2014 issued by S.P.,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru.
Ex.P42 : R.T.O. Yelahanka KA 04 MD 7218
documents and details
Ex.P42(a) : ‘B’ Register extract
Ex.P43 : Indian Gas Agency details of gas
connection
Ex.P44 : Motorcycle Insurance details
54 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex.P45 : Baptist Hospital records
Ex.P46 : Star Health policy details
Ex.P47 : Nakshatra Electronics / DVD charges
Ex.P48 : Valuation report bearing vehicle KA -04
MD 7218
Ex.P48(a) : Report of Motor Vehicle Inspector
Ex.P49 : Vijaya Bank / Sowjanya Account details
Ex.P50 : Sowjanya R.D. Account details
Ex.P51 : Mohankumar R.D. Account details
Ex.P52 : Narahari Krish R.D. Account details
Ex.P53 : Proceedings dtd.31.8.2015
Ex.P54 : LIC documents policy details
Ex P55 : Chikkajala Grama Panchayat letter
dt.30.5.2016
Ex P56 : Amount explanation & documents
Ex P57 : Letter of Forest department report
28.12.2016
Ex P58 : Agriculture report
Ex.P59 : Final report
Ex P60 : Certified copy of sale deed
dtd.16.11.2012 in the name of accused
and his wife
Ex P60(a) : Encumberrance Certificate for Ex.P60
sale deed and correspondence
Ex.P61 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd.13.9.2007
executed in favour of the accused
Ex P61(a) : E/C for Ex.P60 sale deed and
correspondence
55 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex P62 : Documents related to Motor Cycle
KA-50-E-3758
Ex.P62(a) : ‘B’ register extract
Ex.P63 : Statement of account in respect of SB
A/c………5999 held in the name of
accused with 65B Certificate.
Ex.P64 : Documents related to SB A/c………1439
held in the name of wife of accused
Ex.P65 : Vehicle insurance of wife of accused
Ex.P66 : Life membership of accused –
Yoginarayana Indology Centre
Ex.P67 : Receipt for purchase of tyre to the Qualis
vehicle of accused
Ex.P68 : Receipt of cycle purchase
Ex.P69 : Permanent receipt of ISKCON
Ex.P70 : Income from Agriculture
Ex.P71 : Maturity amount of LIC
Ex.P72 : Loan details with regard to loan obtained
from T. Narasimhaiah by wife of accused
Ex.P73 : IDBI Bank letter dtd.13.5.2015
Ex.P73(a) : Copy of IDBI Bank cheque dtd.17.8.2012
Ex.P74 : Letter dt.22.12.2014 of J.C. Income Tax
department with enclosures
Ex.P75 : Letter dt.9.12.2014 of Tata AIG General
Insurance co. with policy documents
Ex.P76 : Nakshatra Electronic receipt
dt.26.12.2012 for purchase of DVD for
Rs.6,500/-
Ex.P77 : Original agreement to sell dt.26.6.2014
in respect of Smt.Venkatalakshmamma
56 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex.P78 : Original sale deed dt.4.8.2014 favouring
Venkatalakshmamma
Ex.P79 : Tax paid receipt dt.7.12.2014
Ex.P80 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P81 : Karnataka Bank pass book in the name
of Mohan Krishna
Ex.P82 : Copy of RC in respect of Car No.KA 04
MD 7218
Ex.P83 : Copy of RC book in respect of Hero
Honda motorcycle No.KA 50 AE 3758
and copy of insurance
Ex.P84 : Car policy for Rs.12,602/-
Ex.P85 : Invoice issued by Gajanana Textiles
Ex.P86 : 02 Reliance Mobile cash receipts
Ex.P87 : Royal Wheel Alignment Bill dt.17.4.2013
Ex.P88 : Cash bills of Shree Enterprises
Ex.P89 : 03 Cash bills of Baptist Hospital,
Bengaluru
Ex.P90 : Bill dt.15.11.2013 and 4.2.1014 of I-IA4
Health care
Ex.P91 : Jakram Cycles Bill dtd.26/7
Ex.P92 : Giriyas Investment Receipt for
Rs.22,000/-
Ex.P93 : Prince Marketing Tax Invoice for
Rs.8,900/-
Ex.P94 : Receipt dt.17.10.2010 of Sri Yogi
Narayana Indology
Ex.P95 : H.P. Gas subscription voucher
Ex.P96 : LIC related papers
Ex.P97 : Post office Chikkajala counterfoil for
Rs.400/-
Ex.P98 : Star Health Policy copies
57 Spl. C.C.312/2017
List of material objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution:
– Nil –
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
DW 1 : Manjunath K.H. DW 2 : Srinivasa DW 3 : T. Munikrishnaiah DW 4 : T. Narasimhaiah DW 5 : Bhanuprakash DW 6 : K.H. Kumar DW 7 : T. Venkatappa DW 8 : R.K. Prasad DW 9 : Krishnappa
List of document marked on behalf of defence side
Ex.D1 Copy of Government Order dt.10.1.1994
Ex.D2 True copy of proceedings of Chikkajala Grama
panchayath
Ex.D2(a) Portion of the Ex.D2 at page No.3Ex.D3 True copy of From Register
Ex.D4 & Documents relating to accused
D5
Ex.D6 Affidavit Dt.23.3.2015 of Dw.1
Ex.D6 (a) Signature of Dw.1Ex.D7 Copy of death Certificate of Sri. Dasappa
Ex.D8 Affidavit dt.1.4.2015 given by Dasappa
Ex.D8(a) Signature of DasappaEx.D9 Affidavit dt.23.3.2015 given by Dw.4
58 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Ex.D9 (a) Signature of Dw.4
Ex.D10 to Confirmation letters of M/s.Jaaji Developers
D.17
Ex.D10(a) Signature of Dw.8
to D17 (a)
Ex.D18 Statement of Horticulture and Agriculture
Income and Certificate issued by Dr. Mallappa
Ex.D19 Attested copy of the sale agreement
dt.25.6.2008 executed between Dw.4 and
others in favour of Manjunath
Ex.D19(a) Signature of Dw.4
Ex.D20 Attested copy of the sale deed dt.12.9.2009
between Dw.4 and others in favour of M/s.
S.S. properties
Sd/- 27/1/25
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
59 Spl. C.C.312/2017 The separate judgment is pronounced in the open court. The
operative portion of the judgment is
as hereunder.
ORDER
Acting under section 248(2) of the
Cr.P.C, the accused Sri. Krishnappa
S/o. Sri. Chikka Narasimhaiah is
convicted for the offence defined
under Section 13(1)(e) and punishable
under section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
His bail bonds shall stands
cancelled forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
Order on sentence pronounced in
the open court.
ORDER
The offender Sri. Krishnappa is
sentenced to undergo the rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay fine of
60 Spl. C.C.312/2017
Rs.50,20,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh
twenty thousand) for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e)
r/w. Section 13(2) of The Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988. In default to
pay the fine, he shall undergo the
simple imprisonment for a period of
6 months.
The default sentence shall run
separately.
Office is directed to furnish the
true copy of this judgment free of cost
to the accused forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.