Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 807 (KAR)

Jagadeep R. Thadani v. State by CBI/ACB

2019-04-03

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2019
JUDGMENT : N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J. 1. These seven appeals by the accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively are directed against the Judgment dated 30.08.2010 passed in Special CC No. 134/1998 by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, wherein accused were convicted for the following offences and sentenced as under:- Appeal Number and year Preferred by Spl. CC Number and Date of Disposal Offence Conviction and sentence 914/2010 Accused No. 8 Jagadeep Thadani 134/1998 30.08.2010 Section 120B read with 420 IPC For offence under Section 120-B IPC SI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default SI for 6 months For the offence under Section 420 IPC - SI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default SI for 6 months. 957/2010 C. Subbarayan Accused No. 2 Income Tax Inspector 134/1998 30.08.2010 120B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 468 IPC. 4. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 471 IPC. 5. SI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/S 7 of PC Act. 6. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 3 months for the offence u/S 13(2)R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 956/2010 B.N. Rajanna Accused No. 4 Upper Division Clerk 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B,420 IPC and Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. 120 B,420 IPC and Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 3 months for the offence u/s 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) PC Act. 928/2010 S. Narayana Murthy Accused No. 6 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B, R/W 420 & 468 IPC. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 468 IPC. 961/2010 R.S. Sethuraman Accused No. 7 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B R/w 420 IPC. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 958/2010 B.C. Ashwath Accused No. 9 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B, R/W 420 & 468 IPC. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 468 IPC. 934/2010 M.D. Bheemanaidu Accused No. 10 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B, R/W 420 & 468 IPC. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 934/2010 M.D. Bheemanaidu Accused No. 10 134/1998 30.08.2010 120-B, 420 468, 471 IPC & SECS.7 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 120 B, R/W 420 & 468 IPC. 1. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 120B IPC. 2. SI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. 3. SI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default SI for 6 months for the offence u/s 468 IPC. 2. Accused No. 1 - Shivanna, Accused No. 5 - A Narasimha Murthy died during trial. Accused No. 3 - K. Ramanna died during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 955/2010 and the said appeal stands abated as per the order dated 08.08.2018. 3. For better understanding, parties are hereinafter referred with reference to their status as stood before the trial court. 4. The substance of the Complaint is as under: A complaint came to be registered in RC No. 6(A)/1996 on 05-02-1996 at 4.15 p.m. by the complainant. Place of occurrence of the offence is shown at two places, viz. Mysore and Bangalore. It is stated that the course of offence is said to have started during October 1995. The complainant is one Sri. V. Ashok Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, Bangalore. 5. On 03.10.1995, (1) Accused No. 1- Shivanna, Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, Bangalore; (2) Accused No. 2 - C. Subbarayan, Income Tax Inspector, Income Tax Department, Bangalore; (3) Accused No. 3 K. Ramanna, UDC, Income Tax Department, Bangalore, entered criminal conspiracy with a private person, Shyamprasad, in order to cause wrongful loss to Income Tax Department and to enjoy wrongful gains for themselves. The platform for the offence by the accused is said to be auction of a vacant land being conducted by Income Tax Department by its officials by allotting the same to accused No. 8-Jagadeep R. Thadani, at a low and throw away price by adopting dubious and illegal methods. 6. The Income Tax Department ordered for auction of property of about 10 acres of land, comprised in Survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo Garden, Mysore City, belonging to Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, who is the lineal descendant of former Maharaja of Mysore. 7. 6. The Income Tax Department ordered for auction of property of about 10 acres of land, comprised in Survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo Garden, Mysore City, belonging to Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, who is the lineal descendant of former Maharaja of Mysore. 7. It was accused No. 1 - Shivanna, who was entrusted with the duty of conducting the auction towards the recovery of tax dues. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 conniving with accused No. 1 ensured through the conspiracy with accused No. 4 that the said land situated at a premium locality goes to accused No. 8. In this connection, it is stated that: (i) The accused person nos. 1 to 10 consisting of public servants and private individuals steadily and systematically committed the offence conspiring and used their intelligence for illegal purpose. (ii) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 manipulated minutes deliberately, illegally and with a malafide intention enacted a stage managed public auction notifying the price of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in respect of 10 acres of land in survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo garden Mysore, and understanding with four bidders having participated in the auction and three of them did not succeed and accused No. 8 was declared the highest bidder and his bid for Rs. 21,00,000/- for 10 acres was accepted. The said auction was conducted on 30.10.1995 at 5.00 p.m. at Mysore. A public auction was notified to be conducted at Mysore in Karnataka by the Income Tax Authority for conducting the sale by public auction of the immovable property in the form of land to the extent of ten acres in survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo garden Mysore, belonging to late Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, the lenial descendant of erstwhile Maharajas of Mysore. It is stated that the said property was notified to be auctioned as the said Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar failed to clear huge arrears of Tax of Rs. 7,51,05,327/-. Further stated that public auction was conducted and completed at Room No. 115 at Hotel Krishna Continental, Mysore on 30.10.1995. Some of the features of the public auction dated 30.10.1995 as stated by the prosecution are as under: (i) The auction was conducted in respect of ten acres of land in survey No. 4 in a premium locality of Kurubarahalli, near Zoo garden Mysore City. (ii) No proper notice was given to the defaulter Sri. Some of the features of the public auction dated 30.10.1995 as stated by the prosecution are as under: (i) The auction was conducted in respect of ten acres of land in survey No. 4 in a premium locality of Kurubarahalli, near Zoo garden Mysore City. (ii) No proper notice was given to the defaulter Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. (iii) There was a plan to prevent participation of bidders in large number as it would have boomeranged. Thus participants were restricted. (iv) There was no proper and valid notice either to the public, more particularly, to PW-5 Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. The public notice of proclamation was done through news paper. (v) The auction was conducted in Hotel Krishna Continental, at room No. 115 on 30.10.1995 and conducting of the same at or near the property to be auctioned was never considered. (vi) The demand draft, pay-in slip vouchers regarding a portion of amount of highest bid were ready well in advance to public auction considering the business hours of the Bank. (vii) The reserve price of the land of ten acres in survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo garden, Mysore, was fixed at Rs. 2,00,000 per acre and the highest bid of the accused No. 8 was Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. The accused were thus successful in conducting the activity in order to make dishonest and wrongful gain by causing dishonest loss to Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. 8. The complaint is marked as Ex.P-114 and it is stated accused persons consisting of public servants (Income Tax officials) and private individuals conspired for committing the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and also offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. In respect of the public servants-accused persons sanction orders were obtained to prosecute them from the respective competent authorities. 10. Final report filed by the CBI/ACB reflect the names of totally ten accused persons, viz. (i) Accused No. 1 - Shivanna S/o Late Sri Somaiah, No. 6, Survey No. 55, Chikkallasandra, Subramanyapura Main Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore-61. (ii) Accused No. 2 - C. Subbarayan, S/o Late Sri Chevattan, No. 18(31), Shamanna Building, I main, I cross, Mathikere, Bangalore. (iii) Accused No. 3 - K. Ramanna S/o Late Sri. Kenchappa, No. 223, Ii phase, 11-B Cross, 18th Main, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-78. (ii) Accused No. 2 - C. Subbarayan, S/o Late Sri Chevattan, No. 18(31), Shamanna Building, I main, I cross, Mathikere, Bangalore. (iii) Accused No. 3 - K. Ramanna S/o Late Sri. Kenchappa, No. 223, Ii phase, 11-B Cross, 18th Main, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-78. (iv) Accused No. 4 - B.N. Rajanna S/o Late Shri. Nanjachar, No. B-3, 61 A.T. Street, Srirangapatna, Mysore District. (v) Accused No. 5 - Narasimhamurthy S/o Shri. Appanna, No. 127/2, Domaplur Village, Bangalore-71. (vi) Accused No. 6 - S. Narayanamurthy S/o Late Shri. K Srinivasamurthy, No. 998, 3rd Main, 6th Cross, Vidyaranyapura, Mysore. (vii) Accused No. 7 - R.S. Sethuraman S/o Shri. V.K.S. Mani, No. 4, Srikrishna, Behind Bhima Jyothi LIC Colony, W.C.Road, Bangalore-79. (viii) Accused No. 8 - Sri. Jagadeep R. Thadani, Director of M/s. Belair Estates Pvt. Ltd. S/o Shri. Ramchand K. Thadani, No. 167 MLA Layout, R.T. Nagar Main Road, Bangalore. (a) No. 153, Monalisa Building, Bomanjipetit Road, Kemps corner, Bombay. (b) C/o Smt. Kavitha (torn) Flat No. 1, 10th Floor, Matru Ashish Buildings, Napeansea, Bombay. (ix) Accused No. 9 - B.C. Aswath S/o Shri. Chikkade Gowda, Babrayana Koppal, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, Karnataka. (x) Accused No. 10 - M.D. Bheema Naidu S/o Late Dharanipalan, No. 73/1, Government House Road, Nazarabad, Mysore. 11. After hearing the accused, the Special Judge framed charges against the accused on 03.03.2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as Genuine a forged document or electronic record) of IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As the accused persons pleaded not guilty, they were tried. 12. The CBI, in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, examined as many as 46 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-46, got exhibited the documents as Ex.P1 to P218 and also marked MOs 1 to 4. 22 13. During the trial, accused No. 1 Shivanna and Accused No. 5-A. Narasimhamurthy were reported dead, consequently case against them came to be abated. The trial Judge, considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced them, as stated above. The same is challenged by the accused in these appeals. 22 13. During the trial, accused No. 1 Shivanna and Accused No. 5-A. Narasimhamurthy were reported dead, consequently case against them came to be abated. The trial Judge, considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced them, as stated above. The same is challenged by the accused in these appeals. Subsequent to disposal of the case and during the pendency of the appeal, Accused No. 3-K. Ramanna, appellant in Crl. A. No. 955/2010 was reported dead and the said appeal also stands abated. 14. Thus, accused persons who are before this Court under these appeals are as under:- (i) Accused No. 2 C. Subbarayan (ii) Accused No. 4 B.N. Rajanna (iii) Accused No. 6 S. Narayanamurthy (iv) Accused No. 7 R.S. Sethuraman (v) Accused No. 8 Sri. Jagadeep R. Thadani (vi) Accused No. 9 B.C. Aswath (vii) Accused No. 10 M.D. Bheema Naidu 15. Learned counsel for accused No. 2/appellant in Crl. A. No. 957/2010 would submit that firstly the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not applicable as there was no demand either directly or indirectly nor was there any acceptance or work of any of the prosecution witnesses are effected. 16. Learned counsel further submits that at Hotel Krishna Continental, Mysore, PW-5 was present, as spoken by PW-31 that decreases the possibility of even suspicion. 17. Further he submits that recovery as per Ex.P118 search list dated 6.2.1996, inventory as per Ex.P119 have no basis as there was no offence that enabled the search. 18. Further there are no eye witness or a circumstance to render the demand and receipt within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He would further submit that this accused is victim of circumstances. 19. Learned counsel for accused No. 4/appellant in Crl. A. No. 956/2010 submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that he was present when the main offence i.e. auction dated 30.10.1995 was conducted and arranged accused No. 9, dummy bidder. Further, he is stated to be present on 30.10.1995 along with accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10 as per the evidence of PW-31 and that cannot be an offence. 20. Learned counsel for accused No. 6/appellant in Crl. A. No. 958/2010 submits that the allegation is that this accused was a close associate of accused No. 4 - B.N. Rajanna. He is one of the bidder upto Rs. 1, 2, 3, 10 as per the evidence of PW-31 and that cannot be an offence. 20. Learned counsel for accused No. 6/appellant in Crl. A. No. 958/2010 submits that the allegation is that this accused was a close associate of accused No. 4 - B.N. Rajanna. He is one of the bidder upto Rs. 2,03,000/- as per Ex.P3. 21. Learned counsel for accused No. 7/appellant in Crl. A. No. 961/2010 would submit that it is the allegation that he was the middleman of accused No. 8 and that is not correct. 22. Learned counsel for accused No. 9/appellant in Crl. A. No. 958/2010 would submit that accused No. 9 is a bonafide bidder and his act of participation can never be regarded as an offence under any provision of law. 23. Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for complainant/CBI, would submit that the prosecution has proved the commission of offence charged against the accused. He would further submit that most of the witnesses are public servants and the other witnesses do not have bad antecedents or remarks. 24. It is further submitted that the case has witnessed exploitation of victim to the maximum extent. The only inference that can be drawn through the material on record is that the public auction dated 30.10.1995 is itself an offence. It is further submitted that the accused persons used intelligence to cover the offence. But idea was thwarted because of intervention of the complainant as the said auction dated 30.10.1995 was recalled by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 25. Accused No. 2 is the Income Tax Inspector and he prepared and reported that he had made order of proclamation of sale, altered the value of the property to drastically reduce it and was present at the time of auction at the spot to ensure the auction is commenced, conducted and completed and he created the records to convert the valuable property. Further, forged the records and scheme in furtherance of conspiracy made a platform in the form of auction to ensure that the property is sold at a throwaway price with the malafide intention of making dishonest gain. Also prepared false statement/report and converted records relevant for auction of the property in question belonging to PW-5 Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar and succeeded in the scheme along with other accused in selling property in question for Rs. 21,00,000/-. 26. Also prepared false statement/report and converted records relevant for auction of the property in question belonging to PW-5 Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar and succeeded in the scheme along with other accused in selling property in question for Rs. 21,00,000/-. 26. Accused No. 4 being a public servant working as UDC, is part of the fictitious auction dated 30.10.1995 and even had applied CL on 30.10.1995 and present at the spot, ensured that he receives illegal gratification from the beneficiary of the said illegal auction. 27. Accused Nos. 6, 9 and 10 are private persons. Accused No. 6 is very much acquainted with Shyamprasad. He is one of the bidders who enabled Accused No. 8 to come out as the highest bidder with Rs. 21,00,000/- for 10 acres of property in question played his role as planned, a conspiracy to manage, and ensured to see that accused No. 8 will be highest bidder. 28. Accused No. 7, Sethuraman is the middle man liasoning accused No. 6 and 8 as revealed by the evidence of PWs. 24 and 25. 29. It is also claimed by the prosecution that every body here have planned a perfect project that was not only illegal but a threatening one. The masterminded scam would not have been possible had there was no conspiracy among the accused, The public servants/accused ensured that entire set of proceedings or documents that become necessary, also taking precautions so that the dark deeds stayed in darkness, that brought a dis-respect to the department, as they committed the offence and ill-gotten wealth could not be shared because of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax canceling the result of the auction of that property. However, portion of the amounts said to have been received were recovered through mahazar by the CBI. 30. The onus is on the complainant-CBI to establish whether the landed property measuring 10 acres comprised in Survey No. 4, Kurubarahalli, near Zoo Garden, Mysore City, that belonged to Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar was undervalued and sold to a collusive purchaser accused No. 8 on 30.10.1995 for a throw away price at Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. 31. The sworn testimony of PW-1 C.V. Padmanabhan, who was the Commissioner of Income Tax during the relevant period is regarding the procedure for recovery of tax. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar was undervalued and sold to a collusive purchaser accused No. 8 on 30.10.1995 for a throw away price at Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. 31. The sworn testimony of PW-1 C.V. Padmanabhan, who was the Commissioner of Income Tax during the relevant period is regarding the procedure for recovery of tax. As per his version, the Assessing Officer certifies the quantum payable, collects a list of properties owned and possessed by the assessee, hands over the list to TRO-Tax Recovery Officer. Tax Recovery Officer issues the order of attachment of the property which is proposed to be sold and then seeks permission from the Income Tax Department for sale of the attached property and the same has to be informed to the assessee. But for all the legal and practical purposes, this would be the final opportunity for the asseessee to clear the dues and save the property. 32. In the present case, accused No. 1 was the Tax Recovery Officer and accused No. 2 was the Income Tax Inspector. As per the records, reports and the other relevant documents the table showing the reports filed and action taken by accused persons are already mentioned. 33. According to PW-1 it is mandatory for the Accused No. 1-Tax Recovery Officer to obtain permission before fixing the Reserve Price. PW-1 is said to be the Superior to Tax Recovery Officer. 34. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre and for the total extent of 10 acres, it is Rs. 20,00,000/-. The property was sold for Rs. 21,00,000/- at Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. It is this witness who passed the order setting aside the auction dated 30.10.1995 as per Ex.P1 dated 29.3.1996. No material or fatal admission are elicited from this witness. 35. PW-2 Selvaraj, Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Income Tax Department tells about the procedures which is already spoken by PW-1. 21,00,000/- at Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. It is this witness who passed the order setting aside the auction dated 30.10.1995 as per Ex.P1 dated 29.3.1996. No material or fatal admission are elicited from this witness. 35. PW-2 Selvaraj, Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Income Tax Department tells about the procedures which is already spoken by PW-1. He also tells that first they have to receive the intimation from Assessing officer with regard to arrears to be recovered from the assessee, it will be given in ITCP Form No. 1, after service of the same, if he has not paid the arrears within 15 days, the time stipulated for the purpose of the payment in the said form, they will issue another notice for attachment of the movable and immovable property in ITCP Form No. 16 to the assessee and one copy will be affixed to the office notice board and the related procedures as spoken by PW-1. The documents that are identified and got marked by him are: Ex.P2 - File in respect of auction of the property of PW-5 which contains 1 to 193 sheets. He speaks about non availability of ITCP Form served by accused No. 1 to assessee. He also tells about the list of bidders with address as per Ex.P3 and list of bidders at the spot of auction as per Ex.P4. He also speaks that the highest bidder was accused No. 8 - Jagadeep Thadani through his agent one Mr. Sham Prasad. It is also clear that no paper publication was made. He denies the suggestions made against the prosecution. 36. PW-3 M.V. Bhanumathi, Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Mysore, during the relevant period, who has verified the list of bidders and accused No. 8 was the highest bidder and addresses of the bidders mentioned in the fax message were false. No proper auction was conducted. 37. PW-4 B.N. Mohan, Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Mandya, during the relevant time and he tells that he knows accused No. 4 B.N. Rajanna, he was working as UDC and granted leave to Accused No. 4 on 25.10.1995 (RH) and on 30.10.1995 (CL) (leave application is dated 28.10.1995). 38. PW-5 Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, is an assessee and defaulter in payment of tax of Rs. 7,51,05,327/-. During his oral evidence, he asserts that the land which was subjected to auction worth Rs. 30 to 40 lakh per acre. 38. PW-5 Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, is an assessee and defaulter in payment of tax of Rs. 7,51,05,327/-. During his oral evidence, he asserts that the land which was subjected to auction worth Rs. 30 to 40 lakh per acre. He makes representation to the Union Finance Minister stating about the illegalities in sale proclamation, reserve price and the related. He further intimated accused No. 1 that High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 19404/1997 stayed the collection of arrears and also enclosed the letter as Ex.P1. This witness complains that he did not receive the notice of auction dated 30.10.1995 He also lodges a complaint to Commissioner of Income Tax, who later passed an order canceling the said auction. PW-6 Sathya Dharma, Income Tax Officer, DIR (I), Bangalore - he was in charge of grant of leave and sanctioned leave to accused No. 5 and there is no cross examination. 39. PW-7 Mohammed Amanulla, Deputy Manager (NRI) SBI JC Road, during the relevant period and maintained NRI accounts in SBI and Foreign Exchange and has handed-over two documents, i.e. pay-in-slips dated 30.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 pertaining to Thadani and Belair Estate as per Ex.P21 and P22. Ex.P21 was given by Accused No. 8 for collecting bankers cheque for Rs. 5.00 lakh in favour of Tax Recovery Officer, Bangalore. 40. PW-8 M.A. Srinivas, Chartered Accountant and he represents PW-5 Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar in the Income Tax Department for the purpose of filing the returns and attending his cases. 41. PW-9 Jayaram, District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, who provides the description of property and states that the value of the property fixed is not as per guidelines. 42. PW-10 Chandrashekar was doing Tourist business who provides vehicles for trips and maintains trips sheets. He states that an Ambassador was given to A3 from Bangalore to Mysore on 27.10.1995 and Maruthi van was given to A3 from Bangalore to Mysore and Nanjangud on 30.10.1995 as per Exs.P41 and P43. 43. PW-11 G. Girish, Cushion workers who is the witness for Ex.P45-panchanama dated 22.9.1998. 44. PW-12 P.V. Rai, Director in Rural Development Self Employment training Institute, Mysore and working as Manager in Divisional Office, Mysore who tells about Fixed deposits made by deceased accused Sham Prasad. PW-13 Dhanaraj, pawn broker states that Accused No. 1 pledged a gold chain on 14.1.1996 as per Ex.P58. 44. PW-12 P.V. Rai, Director in Rural Development Self Employment training Institute, Mysore and working as Manager in Divisional Office, Mysore who tells about Fixed deposits made by deceased accused Sham Prasad. PW-13 Dhanaraj, pawn broker states that Accused No. 1 pledged a gold chain on 14.1.1996 as per Ex.P58. PW-14 S. Kadaraiah, Sub Registrar, Mysore North Taluk and he states that the value of the property is around Rs. 500/- per Sq. Ft. and approximately around Rs. 10-12 lakhs per acre. PW-15 Manju Shetty, Businessman and friend of Accused 5. He states that he had borrowed a total of Rs. 1,15,000/- from A5 in December 1996 which was seized by CBI. He also tells that he had deposited Rs. 1,15,000/- and an additional Rs. 10,000/- as per Ex.P60. PW-16 Narasamma, sister of wife of Accused No. 5 and from whom Rs. 80,000/- was seized. PW-17 Karpagam is the wife of accused No. 2 and from whom Rs. 50,000/- was seized as per Ex.P73 and they turn hostile to the case of the CBI. PW-18 Cheluvachar and PW-20 Narasimhaiah are the postman who have issued endorsement as per Exs.P74 and P75. PW-19 S.M. Ganguly, working as Manager, SBI he tells regarding stopping of payment on the order of CBI. PW-21 K.V. Chowdary, Additional Commissioner of IT, Bangalore, PW-22 Prakash Adnur, Joint Commissioner of IT, Mysore, PW-23 G.R. Reddy, Commissioner of IT, Karnataka, are the authorities who have issued sanction orders in respect of A3, A4, A1, A2 respectively. PW-24 Gopinath and PW-25 Ravi Hegde are doing business in Real Estate and they speaks regarding the auction. PW-26 R. Parthasarathy, is an Practicing Company Secretary who handles registration of companies. PW-27 R. Ranganatha, is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 14, Bangalore and working as Inspector to ASIT (I) who was asked to verify the address of M/s. Belair Estates Pvt. Ltd. PW-28 Mallikarjuna, Postman who has issued endorsement in respect of RPAD sent to Akram Basha. PW-29 Jayashree Mulki, Assistant Commissioner of IT (Vigilance) Karnataka Circle, Bangalore who has issued letter, copies of cheques and other documents to SP CBI as per Ex.P84. PW-30 K.A. Mallikarjuan, ITO, ADIT (I) Mysore, who has ascertained the value of the property in question from the office of the Deputy Registrar of Stamps and Registration. PW-29 Jayashree Mulki, Assistant Commissioner of IT (Vigilance) Karnataka Circle, Bangalore who has issued letter, copies of cheques and other documents to SP CBI as per Ex.P84. PW-30 K.A. Mallikarjuan, ITO, ADIT (I) Mysore, who has ascertained the value of the property in question from the office of the Deputy Registrar of Stamps and Registration. PW-31 Thimmaraya Gowda, Tax Recovery Officer, Group D, Bangalore who has accompanied Accused 2 and 3 along with briefcase with documents to the house of accused No. 1 and also to Mysore. PW-32 Usha Govindhan, Additional Commissioner of IT, Bangalore, approved the proposal letter dated 21.8.1995. PW-33 S.M. Nagaraju, Commissioner of MUDA who speaks that it was part of his job to auction sites and aware of prevailing rates. PW-34 C.M. Shanthaveeraiah, Deputy Manager, SBI, Bangalore, at the relevant time and witness to seizure of two pay-in-slips as per Exs.P21 and P22. PW-35 Vijayalakshmi siezer mahazar witness and turns hostile. PW-36 S. Nagaraja, Assistant Manager, WOC Branch, SBM, seizure mahazar witness to Ex.P96. PW-37 K.V.S. Acharya, Branch Manager, SBI, Tyagarajanagar, Bangalore, seizure witness to Ex.P97. PW-38 Kalyani is the wife of CW-41 and seizure mahazar witness, turns hostile. PW-39 S. Lakshminarayan, Office Assistant working in Private company where Accused 8 was one of the Directors and turns hostile. PW-40 Akkam Bhadrapa, Chief Manager (P&S) SBM, Bangalore, provides information about the transaction of Shyamprasad Badekila, as per Exs.P100-113. PW-41 V. Ashok Kumar is the Investigating officer, who has registered FIR as per Ex.P114 against the accused persons, obtained court order to search residence and office of A1 to 3, seized documents and articles from the house and office of accused Nos. 1 to 3 as per Exs.P115, 116, 117, 123, 118, 119, 124, 120, 121, 122 and 125. He arrested the accused 1 to 3 on 6.2.1996, accused No. 4 on 8.2.1996, accused No. 5 on 10.2.1996, accused No. 6 on 11.2.1996, accused No. 9 and 10 on 11.2.1996, accused No. 7 on 14.2.1996. He also seized the documents from accused Nos. 5 and 7 as per Ex.P138, 139, 163. He also recovered amounts on the basis of the statements of accused as per Exs.P133, 142, 143 and 156 and speaks regarding the statements recorded. PW-42 M. Rangaswamy, is the constable ACB, CBI who has verified the addresses of four persons and submitted a report as per Ex.P215. 5 and 7 as per Ex.P138, 139, 163. He also recovered amounts on the basis of the statements of accused as per Exs.P133, 142, 143 and 156 and speaks regarding the statements recorded. PW-42 M. Rangaswamy, is the constable ACB, CBI who has verified the addresses of four persons and submitted a report as per Ex.P215. PW-43 P.K. Ramachandran has conducted the investigation in part and recovered money. PW-44 Ramakrishna Inspector, ACB, CBI took up further investigation, obtained sanction orders against the accused who are the public servants and submitted the chargesheet. PW-45 C. Ponnalagan, Inspector ACB CBI has recorded the statement of witnesses and collected Exs.P85 and P86. PW-46 H.G. Parshi, I ACMM, Bangalore at the relevant time, recorded statements of accused Nos. 9 and 10 under Section 164 Cr.PC as per Ex.P217 and 218. The claim of the complainant/CBI is that the persons from Income Tax Department are those who were entrusted with the powers in connection with the recovery of arrears of tax. It is stated that said accused/Public servants by misusing and abusing their official position committed offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. Ex.P12, is the proclamation of sale notifying of the auction sale on 20.10.1995 at 11 a.m. [but the auction was conducted on 30.10.1995 at Room No. 115, Hotel Krishna Continental]. Even Ex.D17 is also a copy of the said notice. The arrears of Income Tax that was liable to be paid was Rs. 7,51,05,327/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty One Lakh Five Thousand Three hundred and Twenty Seven Only) by Sri Srikanta Datta Wadiyar and the date of notice is'20-10-1995. Ex.P4 (D-39) is the bidding sheet of auction of property in question conducted on 30.10.1995 at 5.30 p.m. at Mysore. It is as under:- S. No. Name of the bidder Bid amount in (Rs.) 1. Shyam Prasad on behalf of Belair Estate Private Limited - Accused No. 4 2,01,000/- per acre 2,11,000/- per acre 2. Narayanamurthy - Accused No. 6 2,03,000/- per acre 3. B.C. Aswath- Accused No. 9 2,04,000/- per acre 4. Seetharam-Accused No. 7 2,05,000/- per acre Further, Ex.P21-Challan for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- by accused No. 8; Ex.P22-Another challan for Rs. Shyam Prasad on behalf of Belair Estate Private Limited - Accused No. 4 2,01,000/- per acre 2,11,000/- per acre 2. Narayanamurthy - Accused No. 6 2,03,000/- per acre 3. B.C. Aswath- Accused No. 9 2,04,000/- per acre 4. Seetharam-Accused No. 7 2,05,000/- per acre Further, Ex.P21-Challan for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- by accused No. 8; Ex.P22-Another challan for Rs. 15,90,795/-; Ex.P23-Statement of account; Ex.P24-Account opening form; Ex.P25- Statement of account; Ex.P27(D-2) - Order of attachment of immovable property dated 04.05.1995. (A) Ex.P30 - letter dated 25.09.1995 sent by Chartered accountant. (B) Ex.P32-34 - are the letters of Chartered Accountant. 45. The auction was conducted and completed at Room No. 115, Hotel Krishna Continental in Mysore. The property in question i.e. 10 acres of land is situated at Kurubarahalli, near Zoo Garden, Mysore. No bidder can ever saythat at City of Mysore which is well known for World Famous Dasara the value of the land will as stated. However in the subsequent development the auction came to withdrawn as per the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 46. Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar raised his objections against the auction of the said property through letter dated 23.09.1995 marked as Ex.P14 (Ex.D46) and insisted for withdrawing the auction notice. Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar also addressed a letter dated 01.10.1996 marked as Ex.P16 and also as Ex.D129 in this connection against the auction of property and also suspecting offence by Income Tax officials and others. Sri Srikanta Datta Wadiyar was also examined as prosecution witness PW-5. A letter is also addressed by him to Sri. Manmohan Singh, the then Minister for Finance, Government of India, as per Ex.P17 on 27.09.1995. The rest of the documents are regarding conducting of auction of the property comprised in Survey No. 4 to the extent of 10 acres at of Kurubarahalli, near Zoo Garden, Mysore City. The further claim of the prosecution is that the accused persons ensured that PW-5 who was the owner of the property in question, was kept in darkness and away from the activities. 47. Involvement of the accused is said to be both active and tacit deeds to ensure that the valuable land is undervalued to the maximum extent and sold in the said auction dated 30.10.1995 for a meager amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- and get crores of rupees from rest of the value of the property. 47. Involvement of the accused is said to be both active and tacit deeds to ensure that the valuable land is undervalued to the maximum extent and sold in the said auction dated 30.10.1995 for a meager amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- and get crores of rupees from rest of the value of the property. The formality of auction sale was completed and the security deposit was paid on the date of auction itself. It is also the claim of the prosecution that the very conducting of the auction is claimed to be the main offence and the main witness for proving the conducting of auction dated 30.10.1995 is the auction itself. 48. From the nature of offence and its commission, it is seen that accused committed the acts for gain with scant respect to economic structure of the nation. Thus when the ill-gotten wealth obtained by the wrongdoer is recovered or when the efforts of offender to reap the ill-gotten wealth is thwarted and subverted. 49. At this stage it is necessary to make a mention regarding the following. (1) PW-5 Sri Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar owed arrears of income tax of Rs. 7,51,05,327/- payable to I.T. Department. (2) The income tax officials or the accused have decided to auction the property in question through public auction. (3) PW-5 Sri Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar was the undisputed owner of the landed property to the extent of 10 acres in Sy. No. 4, at Kurubarahalli near Zoo, Mysore. On 30.10.1995, the public auction was conducted in respect of the property in question wherein accused No. 4 participated and the bidding details including the highest bidder are as stated above.