Criminal Court's "SEAL of Approval"
Existence of Judges Scam in Coffins of Lok Ayukta

+ Our CD is FACTUAL & Judicial-Documentary-Based 

+ Neither Venkatachala nor 
Police thought-fit to Ponder-in-contents to Adduce Evidences Against TRUE JUDGES SCAM 

=
Judicial Authority for  sales of Lok Ayukta SCANDAL CDs

PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment 

High-Ligts:   Para 10   Para. 10:   It is another fold of argument that the    accused   No.1   and    2   were    distributing    the    hand   bills and    shouting    slogans against    the    Hon'ble    Lokayuktha    will not amounts to any offence,  because   it   is   a   Democratical   Power   given   to   all   the citizens   to   express   their   DISSATISFACTION     or    SATISFACTION   .                                   Therefore, the    allegation   that   the   accused   persons    were    crying   and   it   was amounts to obstruction   to   the   officers   holds   no   water.

Para 11:    PW-3 D. Krishnappa Registrar of the Hon'ble Lokayuktha office has deposed that both the accused persons were raising slogans against the Hon'ble Lokayuktha and tried to attract the publics in an indecent manner.                        He also deposed that by the act of the accused persons it was disrespect to the Hon'ble Lokayuktha and to the Judges.                                                       It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have created false impression on the publics about the work of Hon'ble Lokayuktha.                                                               But I would like to say that it does not amounts to any offence, because the distribution of hand bills or holding a banner against  any authority does not comes within the purview of sections as alleged in the charge sheet and which is sufficient to acquit the accused persons.  

Para 12: Para12:       All the witnesses have answered that they have seen the contents, but they are not in a position to give the description.                        Further the No-body is not aware what the CDs are containing.                                                  Even the investigator also did not say anything about the same.                                   According to PW-1 and PW-2 the  accused persons were shouting by holding banner and distributing     the handbills.                             According to investigator, he has seized handbills , banner and CDs and filed the charge sheet.                                            Whether the contents of CDs, handbills and banners will amounts to any statement or not is not investigated.                              It is not the evidence of investigator he has sent the CDs to know what it contained.                                Therefore, there is evidence that those articles have been seized and nothing further proceedings has been proved by the prosecution.                  

Para  13:      In the complaint marked as Ex.P1 the time of the alleged incident is mentioned as 1.30 am.,       But it was ought to be 1.30pm.,       In this connection the IO who is examined as PW-6 has said that he has recorded the further statement of CWI and wherein CW-1 had said that the timing was not 1.30am., but it was 1.30pm.,                                    But when the same was questioned to complainant PW-3 he did not admit that IO has recorded his further statement.              It means the further                 statement as said by the IO is false one is the argument of the defence counsel.                            But however it is not a fatal point to throw the complaint itself.                               Because the presence of accused persons and distribution of CDs and holding of banner near the office of Lokayukth is not deride by the accused person.                                It is his case that this false complaint is lodged just because he has given a petition to the Hon'ble Lokayuktha about the scandal.                                            During the cross-examination of PW-3, an attempt has been made by the counsel to get admission over the same.          


IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., B’LORE

Dated this the  21st day of June 2006

  Present: Sri.K. Palakshappa, B.Sc., LL.B., 
VIII ADDL C.M.M., B’LORE  

C.C.NO: 8838/2005

 

Complainant:     State by Vidhanasoudha PS

 

ACCUSED       :           1. Digvijaya Mote S/o Ramachandra Mote, 48 years

                                      2. Uma Mote W/o Digvijaya Mote, 34 years.  

      Both are residents of No. 42, Patel Ramakrishna layout , Gottigere Shankar Nag Road, Bangalore.

 

JUDGMENT
U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C
. :

a.         the serial no. of the case                        :            CC No. 8838/2005

b.         the date of the commission                   :            8/7/2004 
    
        of the offence

c.         the name of the complainant if any       :            D. Krishnappa 
           

d.         the name of the accused, his                   :            As above 
           
parentage & residence

 

e.         the offence complained of; or proved      :            u/s.341, 353, r/w. 34 IPC

 

f.          the plea of the accused and his                 :             accused persons pleaded not guilty
            examination (if any)

Page. 2….

 

g.         the final order                                          :            U/s. 248(1) of Cr PC the accused are acquitted

 

h.         the date of such order                              :            21/6/2006.

 

i.          the brief statement of the                         :            as follows:-
            reasons for the decision

 

 

            The Sub Inspector of Police, Vidhanasoudha P S has filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 & 2 alleging that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/s. 341,353, r/w.  34 of IPC.

 

2.                  The brief facts of the case are that on 8/7/2004 at about 1-30 pm the accused persons with common intention in front of Lok Ayukta office situated in Multistoried building, Dr. Ambedkar road, holding banners in their hand by distributing pamplets, CDs shouting slogans and demanding to close Lok Ayukta office and restrained CW-2 H.C Nagabushana CW-3 M.Krishnappa, CW-4 Arifulla Sharif, CW-5 Radhakrishna from entering the office and caused disturbance to perform their duty. Hence, this charge sheet.

3.                  After receipt of the charge sheet, the plea has been recorded, read over to the accused persons

Page.3…

   for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.


4.   In order to prove the allegations the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 witnesses and got marked documents at Ex. P1 to P.5. Thereafter accused persons have been examined U/s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 

5.   Heard arguments.

  1. The points arose for consideration of the Court:

 

1.     Whether the prosecution proves the alleged offence against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt?

2.     What order?

 

  1. My finding on the above points are held as under;

(1).            Point No.1:            In the Negative;

(2).            Point No.2:            As per final order

            below for the following:

 

REASONS:

  1. Point No. 1:-   Vidhanasoudha Police Station have registered a case against the accused persons in their crime No. 48/04 based upon the complaint given by Sri.D. Krishnappa who was the registrar of Lok Ayukta

 

Page 4…                                                PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment 

 

            Office. The offences alleged against the accused persons are 341,353 r/w 34 of IPC. After the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against only two accused persons, as third accused person was juvenile. The learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted his argument that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations as it was suffering from so many lacunae. He submitted that none of the witnesses have deposed to attract the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC. Therefore, he submits that accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Under this background now I would like to say the case of the prosecution.

 

  1.             Sr. App has filed his written arguments contending the same as alleged in the charge sheet. I find some force in the argument canvassed on behalf of the accused persons. To attract Sec. 353 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that by the act of the accused persons the witnesses have been wrongfully obstructed from discharging their duties. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses have been wrongfully obstructed from discharging their duties. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused persons have not at all entered the office of the Lok Ayukta. It is clear from the cross-examination of

   

Page. 5…

 

PW-1 to the effect that the alleged incident took place outside the entrance of office of Lok Ayukta. The counsel for the accused persons drew my attention to the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the accused persons were distributing hand bills and CDs to the publics near the gate. By that time publics have gathered there. Therefore, PW-1 felt some inconvenience to enter the premises of the office. He never said that because of the act of accused person he could not able to discharge his duty as usual. But however, it is the evidence of PW-5 Muniyappa ASI that the accused persons have obstructed one Nagabushana, Krishnappa, Sharifulla and one Radhakrishna from doing their duty. Among them Nagabushan and Krishnappa have been examined as PW-1 and respectively. I have already said that they never deposed before the court that the accused persons wrongfully restrained them and caused obstruction. It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that his movement was obstructed because of gathering of publics. There is no any piece of evidence of PW-1 that his movement was obstructed because of gathering of publics. There is no any piece of evidence to say that the accused persons physically restrained those employees and obstructed them from movements. Therefore, allegations u/s. 341 and 353 does not

 

Page. 6…                                               PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment   

 

attract because there is no any direct involvement of the accused persons on that day.

 

  1. It is another fold of argument that the accused No.1 and 2 were distributing the hand bills and shouting slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha will not amounts to any offence, because it is a democratical power given to all the citizens to express their dissatisfaction or satisfaction. Therefore, the allegation that the accused persons were crying and it was amounts to obstruction to the officers holds no water.

 

 

  1. PW-3 D. Krishnappa Registrar of the Hon’ble Lokayuktha office has deposed that both the accused persons were raising slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha and tried to attract the publics in an indecent manner. He also deposed that by the act of the accused persons it was disrespect to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha and to the Judges. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have created false impression on the publics about the work of Hon’ble Lokayuktha. But I would like to say that it does not amounts to any offence, because the distribution of hand bills or holding a banner against

 

Page.  7…

 

 any authority does not comes within the purview of sections as alleged in the charge sheet and which is sufficient to acquit the accused persons.  

  1.  As per the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the criminal force used against the witnesses. As rightly pointed by the defence counsel there is no any such evidence from the mouth of PW-1&2  I have already said that there was no any physical obstruction to the PW-1 & 2 by the accused persons. They never said that the accused persons physically stopped their movements and he has used the criminal force than the necessity. Even it is not the evidence of PW-1 &2 that their obstruction is because of A1 & 2. It is not their evidence that they failed to attend their duty on that day, because of gathering of the A1 & 2 and publics. The defence counsel has specifically to all the witnesses about the contents of handbill and banner. All the witnesses have answered that they have seen the contents, but they are not in a position to give the description. Further the body is not aware what the CDs are containing. Even the investigator also did not say anything about the same. According to PW-1 and PW-2 the

 

Page. 8…

 

accused persons were shouting by holding banner and distributing the handbills. According to investigator, he has seized handbills, banner and CDs and filed the charge sheet. Whether the contents of CDs, handbills and banners will amounts to any statement or not is not investigated. It is not the evidence of investigator he has sent the CDs to know what it contained. Therefore, there is evidence that those articles have been seized and nothing further proceedings has been proved by the prosecution.  

  1.  The counsel for the accused persons has also drawn my attention to some technical defects. In the complaint marked as Ex.P1 the time of the alleged incident is mentioned as 1.30 am., But it was ought to be 1.30pm., In this connection the IO who is examined as PW-6 has said that he has recorded the further statement of CWI and wherein CW-1 had said that the timing was not 1.30am., but it was 1.30pm., But when the same was questioned to complainant PW-3 he did not admit that IO has recorded his further statement. It means the further statement as said by the IO is false one is the argument of

 

Page. 9…                                               PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment 

 

the defence counsel. But however it is not a fatal point to throw the complaint itself. Because the presence of accused persons and distribution of CDs and holding of banner near the office of Lokayukth is not deride by the accused person. It is his case that this false complaint is lodged just because he has given a petition to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha about the scandal. During the cross-examination of PW-3, an attempt has been made by the counsel to get admission over the same. But PW-3 has not admitted the same. There are no any such reasons to file a complaint against the accused persons by PW-3 who is Registrar of office. There are no any good reasons to claim against PW-3 it is clear that because of the act of accused persons and raising slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha in public was in fact disturbing the officials of the said office and also it made the publics to think other wise. But however the offences alleged against the accused persons that they wrongly obstructed the officials and caused obstructions to their official duty is not correct and the  

Page. 10…

 

same is not proved. Another lacuna on the part of the investigation is that as per the remand application dtd:8-7-2004 the IO has seized some handbills, on banner and one CD and the same have been subjected to PF.16/04. But in the PF it is mentioned as 8 CDs and according to the evidence of PW 6 he has seized 8 CDs, 48 handbills and one banner from the accused persons under mahazar marked as Ex.p3. In Ex.P-3 also it is said that some CDs and banner and handbills have been seized. But while in the remand application a different picture has been given. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution also not properly proved the seizure of those articles. PW 4 & 5 has deposed about the Ex.P3. But I would like to say that seizure of one CD or any number of CDs, or banner etc., is not important what is the important was to be not application of sec. 353 of IPC. I have already said that the act of the accused persons does not attract the ingredients of sec.353 of IPC. Holding of banners, distributing of CDs will not come in the way. Therefore, the allegation made by the prosecution itself has no any effect and  

Page. 11…  

 it is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. before passing final order, I would like to say that the property seized from the accused persons cannot be returned to they just because the offences alleged against them is not proved. Because, the same cannot be made use of by them and it is better to destroy them as they have no any monetary value. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

 

  1.  Point No.2:- Accordingly this court proceed to pass the following:

 

O R D E R

 

      Acting U/s. 255 (1) of the criminal procedure code, the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 353 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bounds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused persons are set at liberty.

      M.O. 1 to 3 is ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal time is over.

      (Dictated  to the stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and prints out taken by

 

Page. 12

 

 her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 21st June 2006.)

 

( K. PALAKSHAPPA),

VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE

 

PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment                                                         

 

ANNEXURES:

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:

 

P.W.1      H.C. Nagabhushan

P.W.2       Krishnappa

P.W.3      D.Krishnappa

P.W.4       V.N.Nagarathnaiah

P.W.5      Muniyappa

P.W.6       T.V. Prabhakar

 

List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:

 

EX.P-1       Complaint

Ex. P-2       Spot Mahazar

Ex. P-3      Seizure Mahazar

Ex. P-4       Voluntary statement of A1

Ex.P-5       Attendance Extract

 

List of Material objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution :

 

MO1       Banners

MO2      8 CDs

MO3      48 Phamplets

-         NIL -

 

For defence:

VIII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore  

 

PHOTOCOPY OF Judgment