1 Reserved on : 25.04.2026 Pronounced on : 16.06.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12246 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.11441 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6238 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.8552 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.8594 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.9051 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.9784 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.12788 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12246 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VIVEK B.C., S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O BYCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PINCODE – 572 216. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SMT.B.M.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE B.SATISH, AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS A THASILDAR, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE – 572 216. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI, TUMAKURU DATED 06.10.2022 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.8 IN PURSUANCE OF FILING THE FIR BY THE STATE OF GUBBI POLICE IN CR.NO.157/2022 AND CHARGE SHEET NO.86/2022 DATED 30.09.2022. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11441 OF 2022 BETWEEN: MR. ANNAPPA SWAMY S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, 3 GUBBI TOWN MUNICIPALITY, R/AT BEHIND GOLF LAYOUT, NEAR SMS BRICKS FACTORY, GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU – 572 216. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUBBI P S, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MS.B.M.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE B.SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE-II, TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU – 572 216. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 (CR.NO.157/2022) REGISTERED WITH THE GUBBI NEW TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ISSUE OF PROCESS DATED 06.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI TUMAKURU. 4 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6238 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAVEESH S/O LATE OBALA NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS SHERASTHEDHAR, IN GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572 101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.LAKSHMIKANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . B.M.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE B.SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS GARDE-2, THASHILDHAR, TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU – 572 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.157/2022 IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 OF RESPONDENT GUBBI POLICE FOR THE 5 ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, TUMKUR. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8552 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. VINAY KUMAR G., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O MR. GANGADHAR SWAMY, RESIDENT OF “SHIVAJYOTHI NILAYA” JYOTHINAGAR, 2ND CROSS, GUBBI – 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI – 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MS.B.M. SHASIKALA W/O LATE B.SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE - II- TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI - 572 216 6 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4207/2022(CR.NO.157/2022 REGISTERED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, TUMKUR) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, TUMKUR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 420, 409, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8594 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. NARAYANA K.P., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI VENKATCHALAIAH, RESIDENT OF “VALMIKI NILAYA”, KUVEMPUNAGAR, 6TH CROSS, GUBBI – 572 216, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI – 572 216, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 7 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MS.B.M.SHASIKALA W/O LATE B. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE-II, TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI – 572 216, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 (CR.NO.157/2022 REGISTERED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, TUMAKURU) PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI, TUMAKURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9051 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR.KALLESH H.B., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MR. BASAVARAJAPPA, RESIDENT OF BUKKAPATTANA ROAD, HAGALAVADI VILLAGE AND POST, GUBBI - 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) 8 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI - 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MS. B.M. SHASIKALA, D/O LATE B. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE - II, TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI – 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 (CR.NO.157/2022 REGISTERED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, TUMAKURU) PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI, TUMAKURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C. IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9784 OF 2023 BETWEEN: H.P.VIJAY KUMAR 9 S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O VADALURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF GUBBI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . B.M.SHASHIKALA W/O LATE B. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE – II, THASHILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI, TUMAKURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. 10 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12788 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. RAJESH D., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O DODDARAMAIAH, RESIDENT OF BENACHIGERE VILLAGE HODALURU POST, NITTURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI – 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MS.B.M. SHASIKALA W/O LATE B. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GRADE-II TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, GUBBI – 572 216 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) 11 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4207/2022 (CRIME NO.157/2022 REGISTERED BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, TUMKUR) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, TUMKUR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 471, 120B, 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CAV ORDER Conglomeration of all these cases filed by different accused arise out of a solitary crime and solitary charge sheet filed thereto and the concerned Court registering the case as C.C.No.4207 of 2022. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the facts pertaining to each of the petitions. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 12 2. Heard Smt. K.Abhinaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 11441 of 2022 and 9784 of 2023; Sri B.Chethan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 8594 of 2023, 8552 of 2023, 9051 of 2023, and 12788 of 2023; Sri K.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6238 of 2023 and M.B. Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.12246 of 2023 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in all the cases. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - Criminal Petition No.11441 of 2022: 3.1. This is the earliest of the petitions filed by accused No.21 in Crime No.157 of 2022 which becomes C.C.No.4207 of 2022. On 02-07-2022 one Ms. B.M.Shashikala, Tahsildar Grade-II, Gubbi Taluk Office registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police alleging that one G.H. Satish Kumar was working as a Second Division Assistant in Gubbi Taluk Office beginning his service from 2007 till 2022. While he was working in the record room section of 13 Gubbi Taluk Office and when documents of the record room were verified, it was found that hand written pahanis from the years 1995 to 2000 were manipulated by adding names of some private persons illegally, without there being any order or grant from the Government. Similarly, names of certain private persons were found to be entered illegally in mutation register and darkhast distribution register of the year 1972-73. On the aforesaid facts, the allegation was that in order to grab the land belonging to Government, the said G.H. Satish Kumar conniving with several parties, has cheated the Government and forged the signature while working between 2007 and 2022. At the relevant point in time, he continued to work as Second Division Assistant at Nada Kacheri, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.157 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 of the IPC. G.H. Satish Kumar was drawn as accused No.1 along with several other persons. After registering the crime, the Investigating Officer is said to have conducted inspection of the record room, drawn up a spot mahazar and panchanama. The accused go on getting added 14 and they were interrogated by the Investigating Officer. On their answers being unsatisfactory, accused Nos.1 to 7 were taken into police custody on 05-07-2022 and were later in judicial custody up to 02-09-2022. At the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the Investigating Officer is said to have seized several pages from the mutation register and handwritten pahanis showing insertion of names of private persons illegally and allegedly contrary to law and brought them on record as PF under a panchanama. The name of accused No.21/petitioner was not in the crime. He was later arrayed as accused No.21 while filing the charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences, which now includes offences under Sections 471, 120B and 149 of the IPC also. The concerned Court registers C.C.No.4207 of 2022 and issues process to the accused. Issuance of process is what has driven the present petitioner to this Court. Criminal Petition No.9784 of 2023: 3.2. This petition is preferred by accused No.11. The genesis of the crime in the case at hand is common as triggering from the acts of accused No.1, a Second Division Assistant in the record 15 room of Gubbi Taluk Office where he was working for close to 15 years. Therefore, the facts need not be reiterated. Criminal Petition No.12246 of 2023: 3.3. This petition is preferred by accused No.8. The genesis of the crime and the facts that led to investigation and filing of the charge sheet remains the same as in Criminal Petition No.11441 of 2022. Therefore, they need not be reiterated. Criminal Petition No.6238 of 2023: 3.4. This petition is preferred to accused No.19. The genesis of the crime and drawing of accused No.19 in to the web of proceedings are identical to how accused No.21 was drawn. Therefore, those facts need not be reiterated. Criminal Petition No.8552 of 2023: 3.5. This petition is preferred by accused No.15. The genesis of the crime and drawing of the petitioner into the web of proceedings are the same. They need no reiteration. 16 Criminal Petition No.9051 of 2023: 3.6. This petition is preferred by accused No.10. The genesis of the crime and drawing of the petitioner into the web of proceedings are the same. They need no reiteration. Criminal Petition No.12788 of 2023: 3.7. This petition is preferred by accused No.6. The genesis of the crime and drawing of the petitioner into the web of proceedings are the same. They need no reiteration. Criminal Petition No.8594 of 2023: 3.8. This petition is preferred by accused No.12. The genesis of the crime and drawing of the petitioner into the web of proceedings are the same. They need no reiteration. 4.1. The learned counsel Smt. K. Abhinaya appearing for two of the petitioners would vehemently contend that accused No.21 in Criminal Petition No.11441 of 2022 is lugged into the crime solely on the voluntary statement of accused No.2, that too at the time of investigation by the Investigating Officer. None of the witnesses 17 speak about involvement of the petitioner. The documents or the Mahazar disclose that few pages pertaining to the entries made in the year 1994 against Sy.No.31 wherein the entries made in respect of 4 acres of land each in the names of mother and sister of the petitioner were seized. The charge sheet material fails to show any allegation of the kind. The allegation is that the petitioner/accused No.21 had given bribe to accused No.2 to get the Government records forged. She would contend that accused No.2 is not even a Government servant. Therefore, the allegation itself cannot be sustained. Even going by the allegation, it is accused No.1 who is said to have committed forgery and not the petitioner. The amount transferred by the petitioner to accused No.2, 15 years ago is said to be the brokerage to accused No.2 for getting owners in Sy.No.61 introduced to the petitioner for joint venture development of a layout. Accused No.2 signs as a witness to those agreements entered into between the owners of the said survey number and the petitioner. The agreements are dated 23- 03-2020 and 15-03-2021. She would submit that without any rhyme or reason, the petitioner is drawn into the web of proceedings. 18 4.2. The very counsel appears for the petitioner/accused No.11 in Criminal Petition No.9784 of 2023. It is her submission that accused No.11 is also drawn into the web of proceedings solely on the confessional statement of co-accused without there being any corroborative material. The specific overt act is against accused No.2 who is said to have instigated entry of names of nine members in the M.R. register and had secured certain funds. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no corroborative material. She would seek quashment of entire proceedings, contending that it is an abuse of the process of law. 4.3. The learned counsel Sri B.Chethan appearing for four of the accused would contend that, accused No.15 in criminal petition No.8552 of 2023 is also drawn into the web of proceedings solely on the voluntary statement of accused No.2 without there being any corroborative material. He would contend that in terms of voluntary statement the petitioner is said to have paid ₹5/- lakhs to accused No.2 to make entry in the revenue records in favour of his parents and uncle. There is no incriminating material to the said allegation. The revenue entry is not made in favour of the 19 petitioner and the petitioner is not the beneficiary of such revenue entry. Therefore, the proceedings must not be permitted to be continued against the petitioner/accused No.15. 4.4. The very learned counsel appearing for accused No.10 in Criminal Petition No.9051 of 2023 would reiterate the very grounds insofar as drawing up of accused No.10 on the score that he has paid ₹9/- lakhs to accused No.2 to make entry of ten names in Sy.No.13 of Pura village and also the name of his uncle one Mahalingappa in Sy.No.54 of Yakkalakatte village on the ground that the petitioner herein is not even the beneficiary. 4.5. The very learned counsel insofar as accused No.12 in Criminal Petition No.8594 of 2023 would also reiterate the said statement contending that he is drawn into the web of proceedings solely on the voluntary statement of accused No.2. Accused No.12/ petitioner in this case is a Government servant and it is contended that he has received several encomiums for his honest service and the learned counsel would further contend that though sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not obtained to prosecute this 20 petitioner, the concerned Court has taken cognizance contrary to law. 4.6. The very learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.12788 of 2023 would reiterate the grounds and submit that the petitioner is a Government servant and no sanction is obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C., to prosecute him. The petitioner is lugged into the crime solely on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1. 4.7. Learned counsel Sri K.Lakshmikanth representing accused No.19/petitioner in the Criminal Petition 6238 of 2023 would also contend that the petitioner is a Government servant working as Election Sheristedar and the concerned Court without obtaining prior sanction as required in law, has taken cognizance of the offence. The incidents have admittedly happened between March, 2022 and June 2022. During the said period the petitioner was not even an employee of the said Nada Kacheri. He is again drawn into the web of proceedings solely on the statement of accused No.2. 21 4.8. Learned counsel Sri M.B. Santhosh Kumar representing the petitioner/accused No.8 in Crl.P.No.12246 of 2023 would again reiterate the grounds that are set out in all the petitions that, petitioner has been drawn into the web of proceedings only on voluntary statement of other accused without there being any corroborative material and the order of taking cognizance suffers from blatant non-application of mind. 5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in these cases charge sheets have already been filed and therefore proceedings should not be interdicted, as the petitioners pursuant to the process issued, can contest the proceedings and come out clean. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The submissions in common in all these cases are three- fold viz., (i) The petitioners have been lugged into the web of 22 proceedings solely on the voluntary statement of either accused No.1 or accused No.2 without any corroborative material; (ii) Insofar as Government servants are concerned, there is no sanction obtained under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C., and the concerned Court could not have taken cognizance without sanction; and (iii) The order of taking cognizance suffers from blatant non-application of mind. 8. To consider the aforesaid stream of submissions, the facts need not be reiterated. The entire issue triggers from registration of the complaint. The complaint so registered by 2nd respondent/ Tahsildar on 02-07-2022 reads as follows: “ಸಂ:ಆ ೆ ಎ ಆ: 352/22-23 ಾಂಕ: 02.07.2022 ರವೆ ಅರಕ ಉಪ ೕಕರು ಗು ೕ !ಾ"ೆ ಗು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು 'ಾನ)*ೆ, +ಷಯ :- . /ೆ0 ಸ1ೕ2 ಕು'ಾ 3 ದ ಸ #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕುರವರ +ರುದ6 ಾನೂನು ೕ#ಾ) ಕ7ಮ ಜರು:ಸುವ ಬೆ< =ೕಲ>ಂಡ +ಷಯೆ> ಸಂಬಂದಂ#ೆ . /ೆ0 ಸ1ೕ2 ಕು'ಾ 3.ದ.ಸ. ಆ: ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ& ಈೆ< 2007 ೇ Aಾಂದ ಜೂB 2022 ರ ಅಂತ)ದ ವ*ೆೆ ಕತDವ) 23 ವDEದು6, ಅವರ ಕತDವ) ವDEಸು1Fದ6 GೇHೆಯ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ& ಮುಜ*ಾI, ಆ*ಾಧನ. ಎB ಆ. ಆ.ೆ.ಎ (*ೆಾಡD ರೂಂ) KಾLೆಗಳ& ಕತDವ) ವDEದು6. /ಾ ಇವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು OೇಳPರು /ೋಬQ. ಾಡ ಕ5ೇಯ& 3 ದ ಸ *ಾ: ಕತDRಯ ವDEಸು1Fರು#ಾF*ೆ. . /ೆ0 ಸ1ೕ2 ಕು'ಾ ರವರು ಈ EಂSೆ ಗು #ಾಲು&ಕು ಕOೇಯ *ೆಾಡD ರೂಂ ನ& ಕತDವ) ವDEದು6. ಈೆ< ಒಂದು Gಾರದ EಂSೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು *ೆಾಡD ರೂಂ ನ&ನ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಪXೕಸVಾ: 1995 ಂದ 2000 ರವ*ೆ:ನ ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ಗಳ&, ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ ೆಲವ] ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ ಸGೇD ನಂಬ ಗಳ ಫಹ[ಗಳ& ಅನ`ಕೃತGಾ: ಸಾDರದ bಾವ]Sೇ ಆSೇಶ+ಲ&Sೆ bಾವ]Sೇ ಮಂಜೂ*ಾ1 ಇಲ&Sೆ, Lಾಸ: ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW ನಮೂದು 'ಾdರುವ]ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರು#ೆF, 1972-73 ೇ Aಾನ ದರLಾಸುF +ತರ"ಾ ವEಯ& /ಾಗೂ ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸf ನ&ಯೂ ಸಹ Lಾಸ: ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW ನಮೂದು 'ಾdರುವ]ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರುತFSೆ. ಸದ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQೆ 'ಾd gೕಸ 'ಾಡುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ =ೕಲ>ಂಡ ೆಲವ] SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& ಅ`ಾಗಳ ಸEಗಳನುW ನಕಲು 'ಾdರುವ]ದು *ೆಾಡD ರೂಂ ನ&ನ SಾಖVೆಗಳನುW ಪXೕSಾಗ ಕಂಡುಬರುತFSೆ. ಸದ ಕೃತ)ದ& ಈ EಂSೆ ಕತDವ) ವDEದ ../ೆ0 ಸ1ೕ2 ಕು'ಾ 3 ದ ಸ ರವರು /ಾಗೂ ಇತ*ೆಯವರು hಾ:bಾ:ರುವ]ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂರುತFSೆ. ಆದ6ಂದ #ಾವ]ಗಳi =ೕಲ>ಂಡ ಸ1ೕ2 ಕು'ಾ 3 ದ ಸ /ಾಗೂ ಪ7ಕರಣದ& hಾ:bಾ:ರುವ ಇತ*ೆ ವ)\Fಗಳ +ರುದk ಾನೂನು ೕ1ಯ ಕ7ಮ ಜರು:ಸlೇೆಂದು ತಮm& ೇQೊಳin#ೆFೕ ೆ. ವಂದ ೆಗHೆPಂೆ, ತಮm +Kಾ3 . ಸE/- ತಹXೕVಾ6 -ೆ7ೕq 2 ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು. ಗು” In the complaint no accused is actually named. The complaint would narrate that entries in dharkasth register of 1972-73 are tampered by one G.H.Satish Kumar who was working as a Second 24 Division Assistant in the record room of Gubbi Taluk Office, Gubbi Town between 2007 and 2022. Therefore, the allegations sprang for over 15 years and the documents that are found by the said complainant is between 1995 and 2000 where pahanis were being manually written and are found to be tampered. Pursuant to the said complaint, remand applications are filed drawing accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and several other accused for interrogation. Statements of several of the accused are recorded. It is in the remand applications every one of the accused is drawn into the web of proceedings. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The role of each of the accused is narrated in the charge sheet. Column No.17 of the charge sheet reads as follows: “17. ೇನ ಸಂsಪF Aಾ*ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 109,120 (©), 406, 408, 409,420, 465, 468, 471 gÉ/+ 149 ಐ.v.. ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾ, ../ೆ0. ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾ .,/ೆ0. ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ& SDA ಆ:ದು6, ಇವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ *ೆಾqD ರೂ^ನ&, ಕತDವ)ವನುW ವDEಸುವ ಸಮಯದ& ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 02,03,04,05,06,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈUÉÎ, ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04-OೇತB ಆನಂy, zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ 25 /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ&, /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾರ ರವರು ತನW ಸುಪDನ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW ಬ*ೆಯಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸ•, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಗಳನುW ೕಡು1Fದು6, ಇವ]ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರು ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು eೌB ./ೆ0. ರAೆFಯ& ಇದ6 ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ) ರವರ ಆƒೕ ೆ ತಂದು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ೇಳi1Fದ6 ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರು .ಸf ಗQೆ ಬ*ೆಯು1Fದು6Sಾ: ತLೆIಂದ /ೊರಪ|fರುತFSೆ. ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾ ರವರು ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ೕಡಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವ*ೊಂೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಹಣವನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂdದು6, ಆ ಹಣದ ~ೈ\ ಾಂಕ: 15/05/2022 ರಂದು 5000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ ಪzೆದುೊಂdದು6, /ಾಗೂ ಕಯಣ€ ಆ*ೋv-19 ರ+ೕ2 ರವೆ ೕdzÀÝ ಹಣದ& ಆ*ೋv-01 ರವರು ಾಂಕ: 25/02/2022 ರಂದು 20,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಆ*ೋv-19 ರವಂದ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ದರLಾಸುF .ಸm, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮುeೇಷB .ಸf ನ&, ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆಯಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ಸಹಕ ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗ ಪdೊಂಡು, ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ೆಲಸೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು 'ಾ. ಾ7.ಪಂ. ಸದಸ)*ಾ:ದು6 ಇವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ ಬQ AಾವDಜಕೆ ಕಂSಾಯ ಇVಾLೆಯ ೆಲಸಗಳನುW 'ಾdೊಡುವ ಮಧ)ವ1Dbಾ: ೆಲಸವನುW 'ಾdೊಂdದು6 ಇವೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ ಸಾD ಅ`ಾಗಳi ಮತುF ೌಕರ*ಾದ ಆ*ೋv-01, 04, 05, 08, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 ರವರ ಪಚಯ+ದು6, ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,03,04,05,06,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04- OೇತB ಆನಂy, zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇದ6 ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಈ ಸಂ‡ನ ಸೂತ7Sಾರ ಾ:ದು6 ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ ಹQnಗHಾದ ಹHೆಗು, 1¥ÀÆàರು, /ೊರೆ*ೆ, ೆmÉÖÃೆ*ೆ, ಪ]ರ, lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf, Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಮತುF ಈಚಲಾವಲು ಾ7ಮಗಳ&, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವ ಬೆ< w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-05 26 *ಾ‰ೇ2 ರವರ ಸ/ಾಯಂದ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ *ೆಾqD gÀÆ«Ä£À°è EzÀÝ ¸ÀPÁð ~ಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸ•, ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸ• ಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು, ಆ*ೋv 04 ರವಂದ /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ Gಾ)vFಯ ಪ]ರ, lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf: ಾ7ಮಗಳ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮುeೇಷB .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಆ*ೋv-03 ಮತುF 06 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಗು eೌB ./ೆ0. ರAೆFಯ&,, #ಾನು 'ಾdದ ಆƒೕ ೆ ಈ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW #ೆೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಸದ .ಸf ಗಳ&, ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು /ಾಗೂ ತನW ಈ ಕೃತ)ೆ> ೆರGಾಗುವ ಸಾD ಅ`ಾ / ೌಕರರ ಕುಟುಂಬಸŠರು /ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಕರ /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ನಕಲು SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸೃ‹f 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ತನW ಅ#ೆF *ೇಣುಕಮm ೋಂ ದ6*ಾಮಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಹHೆಗು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 65 ರ&, 1-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf ನ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂತಲೂ /ಾಗೂ ತನೆ ೆರGಾದ ಸಾD ೌಕರ*ಾದ ಆ*ೋv-01 ರವೆ ಒ#ಾFಯದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ 5,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಆ*ೋv-08 +GೇŒ ರವೆ lೇdೆಯಂ#ೆ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ 1,80,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ೕdರು#ಾF*ೆ. ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು zÉÆqÀØUÀÄtÂ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA – 95 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ MlÄÖ 10 d£À C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ಕಂಪ{)ಟ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಸಹಕದ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ) ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-16 ಪ7ಾಶ ರವೆ •ೕB ~ೇ ಮೂಲಕ 4,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಒಳೊಂಡಂ#ೆ 10,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW lೇdೆಯಂ#ೆ ೕdದು6, ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚.ಆ. ರವೆ ಅವರ lೇdೆಯಂ#ೆ MlÄÖ 2,00,000/- ರೂಗಳನುW PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ಆ*ೋv -18 eÉÆÃ ªÀiÁµÀð¯ï gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/06/2022 gÀAzÀÄ 10,000/ರೂಗಳನುW ೕdದು6 ಆ*ೋv- 19 ರ+ೕಶ ರವೆ ಅವರ lೇdೆಯಂ#ೆ 1,43,500/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಲಂಚವ ಾW: ೕdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ) ರವರು ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಆ*ೋv- 10 PÀ¯ÉèÃ±ï ರವಂದ ಆ*ೋv-11 +ಜಯಕು'ಾ ರವರ ದುwೆfೕರ"ೆಯಂ#ೆ ಒಟುf 9,00,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ನಗSಾ: ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂಬ -13 ರ&, ಆ*ೋv- 10 PÀ¯ÉèÃ±ï ರವರ ಕzೆಯವೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮುeೇಷB .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-13, 14 ಮತುF 20 ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮೆ> /ೋ: ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ೋdೊಂಡು ಸದ ಜ^ೕನ& ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ಜನರನುW ನಂ ತVಾ 10,000/ ರೂಗಳಂ#ೆ ಒಟುf 10 ಜನಂದ ಹಣವನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ) ರವೆ ಹಣವನುW ೕdರುವ]ದು /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವರು 27 ಹಣ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡ ಜನೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಾ)ಯಯುತGಾ: ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡSೇ gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಆ*ೋv- 15 +ನŽ ಕು'ಾ ರವಂದ ಒಟುf 5,00,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ನಗSಾ: ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಆ*ೋv-15 ರವರ ತಂSೆ ಗಂಾಧರAಾ3^ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-15 ರವರ #ಾI ಅನಸೂಯ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-15 ರವರ ‡ಕ>ಪ• ..ಆ. ಮ/ಾSೇವ B ../ೆ0. *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-20 ಅಲ&ಮಪ7ಭು ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ 50,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಆ*ೋv -20 ಅಲ&ಮ ಪ7ಭು ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು /ಾಗೂ lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn ಸGೆD ನಂ- 14 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ /ಾಗೂ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ 124 ರ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ"ೆಗಳ& ಆ*ೋv-20 ರವರ ಕzೆಯವ*ಾದ ಬಸವ*ಾಜು B Xವಣ€, ಬಸವ*ಾಜು B ಮೂqÀèಯ), Xವಂಗಯ) B ನರಸಯ) lೋರಯ) B ‡ಕ>ಣ) ರವರ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಇವರ /ೆಸರುಗQೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸೃ‹f 'ಾd ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-21 ಅಣ€ಪ•Aಾ3^ ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ ಆ*ೋv 21ರ ರವರ ಕzೆIಂದಕzೆIಂದ 3,50,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಆ*ೋv 21 ರವರ #ಾI ೌರಮm ೋಂ ಾ*ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ 2 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-21 ರವರ ಅಕ> Kಾಂತ B ಾ*ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf. ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ ಹQnಗHಾದ ಹHೆಗು, 1¥ÀÆàರು, /ೊರೆ*ೆ, ೆmÉÖÃೆ*ೆ, ಪ]ರ, lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf, Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಮತುF ಈಚಲಾವಲು ಾ7ಮಗಳ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡು#ೆFೕ ೆಂದು ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\FಗQಗೂ 28 ಮತುF ಸಾD ಅ`ಾಗಳi / ೌಕರರ ಮ‘ೆ) ಮಧ)ವ1Dbಾ: ೆಲಸವನುW ವDE ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಳnಲು ಸಾD ೌಕರರ lೇdೆಯಂ#ೆ ಹಣವನುW ೊಟುf SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಅವ]ಗಳ& ಒಟುf 142 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ, ನಕಲು SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸೃ‹f, ನಕಲು SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಅಸ SಾಖVಾ1ಗHೆಂದು ಬಳ, ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQ, ಹಣ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡವೆ gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರಂಗನಹQn, ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ 12ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv -03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕOೇಯ ಮುಂhಾಗದ& ಪತ7 ಬ*ೆಯುವ ೆಲಸವನುW 'ಾdೊಂdದು6 ಇವರು ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,02,04,05,06,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04- OೇತB ಆನಂy, zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂ| Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6. ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv- 01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾರ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂದ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ೕಡು1Fದ6 ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರು ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು eೌB ,/ೆ0, ರAೆFಯ&, ಇದ6 ಆ*ೋv- 02 ಕಯ’ಣ ರವರ ಆƒೕ ೆ ತಂದು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ೇಳi1Fದ6 ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರು .ಸf ಗQೆ ಬ*ೆಯು1Fದು6Sಾ: ತLೆIಂದ /ೊರಪ|fದು6, ಈ ಸಮಯದ& ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರು ತನW #ಾI /ೆಸನ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 1Q ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರ #ಾI ಸುXೕಲಮm B ಲಕ>ಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ& 30 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 21 ರ&, 4-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸf ನ& Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ&, ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQಯ zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ಆ:ದು6 ಇವರು ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 29 01,02,03,05,06,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ತನW ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು CPÀæªÀÄ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವ*ೊಂೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ತನW ಸುಪDನ& ಇರlೇಾದ ಸಾD SಾRVಾwಗHಾದ ಪಹ[ .ಸ•, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ೕಡlೇಾದ ಸಮಯದ& ತನW ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ)ರ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು 'ಾdೊಡುವಂ#ೆ lೇdೆ ಇಟುf ನಂತರ .ಸf ಗಳನುW ೕdದು6 ಸದ .ಸf ಗಳ& ಆ*ೋv -02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಹಣ ೊಡು1Fದ6 ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆಯು1FSಾ6: ತLೆ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ರವರು ತನW #ಾI /ೆಸನ& ಮತುF ಸಂಬಂ`ಕರ /ೆಸನ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 1Q ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ರವರು ತನW /ೋಬQ Gಾ)vFಯ ಹQnbಾದ AiÀÄPÀÌ®PÀmÉÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA-31 gÀ°è vÀ£Àß vÁ¬Ä PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ 4-00 JPÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢ü ಅನುಸೂಯ ೋಂ ಚಂದ7Kೇಖ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 4-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF, .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸf ನ& Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQ, ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗ ಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾD ಕಲಸೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-05 *ಾ‰ೇಶ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-05 *ಾ‰ೇಶ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ& ಾ7ಮ ಸ/ಾಯಕ ಾ:ದು6 ಈತನು ಆ*ೋv-01 ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ *ೆಾqD ರೂ^ನ& ೆಲಸವನುW ವDEಸು1Fದು6 ಇವರು ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,02,03,04,06,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& EgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ -04-ZÉÃvÀ£ï D£ÀAzï, qÉ¥ÀÆån vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è CPÀæªÀÄ PÀÆl ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆèQ£À ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è£À ºÀ½îUÀ¼À°è EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄªÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6. ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ *ೆಾqD ರೂ^ನ& ತನೆ lೇಾ:ದ6 SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾ ರವೆ ೇQSಾಗ ಆ*ೋv-01 ರವರ ಸೂಚ ೆಯ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಅSೇ *ೆಾqD ರೂ^ನ& ೆಲಸ 'ಾಡು1Fದ6 ಆ*ೋv-05 *ಾ‰ೇಶ ರವರು ಸದ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಹುಡು\ ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ೊಡು1Fದು6, ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಸದ .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಅವ]ಗಳ& ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ೇಳi1Fದ6 ಅನ`ಕೃತ 30 ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆಯು1Fದು6Sಾ: ತLೆIಂದ /ೊರಪ|fದು6, ಈ ಸಮಯದ& ಆ*ೋv-05 *ಾ‰ೇ2 ರವರು ತBನ #ಾI /ೆಸನ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 1Q ಆ*ೋv-05 *ಾ‰ೇಶ ರವರ #ಾI ಾಗಮm ೋಂ Sೊಡˆ*ಾಮಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 126 ರ& 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ& 4 ಎಕ*ೆ 10 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸf ನ&, Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQ, ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗ ಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾD ೆಲಸೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾFರಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ ಮುಂhಾಗದ& ಪತ7 ಬ*ೆಯುವ ೆಲಸವನುW 'ಾdೊಂdದು6 ಇವರು ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,02,03,04,05,07,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04- OೇತB ಆನಂy, zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ&, ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv- 01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾರ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂದ ರವಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv- 03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು eೌB ./ೆ0. ರAೆFಯ& ಇದ6 ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ಆƒೕ ೆ ತಂದು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ೇಳi1Fದ6 ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರು .ಸf ಗQೆ ಬ*ೆಯು1Fದು6Sಾ: ತLೆIಂದ /ೊರಪ|fದು6, ಈ ಸಮಯದ& ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರು ತನW #ಾI /ೆಸನ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 1Q ಆ*ೋv-06 *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರ #ಾI ರಂಗಮm ೋಂ 'ಾಗಡಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-128 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ& 20 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಮು)eೇಷB .ಸf ನ& Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. 31 ಆ*ೋv-07 OೇತB ಕು'ಾ. ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-07 OೇತB ಕು'ಾ ರವರು ಈ EಂSೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ& ಗು1Fೆ ಆ‘ಾರದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಕಂಪ{)ಟ ಆಪ*ೇಟ ಆ: ಕತDವ)ವನುW ವDEದು6 ಇವರು ಈ ೇನ ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,02,03,04,05,06,08 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04- OೇತB ಆನಂy zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ&, ಗು #ಾಲೂ&\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾರ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂದ ರವಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF, .ಸf, ಪಹ[ .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಗಳನುW ಆ*ೋv-03 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವ*ೊಂೆ ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು eೌB ,/ೆ0. ರAೆFಯ& ಇದ6 ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ಆƒೕ ೆ ತಂದು =ೕಲ>ಂಡ .ಸf ಗQೆ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆಯು1Fದು6 ಈ ಸಮಯದ& ಆ*ೋv-07 OೇತB ಕು'ಾ ರವರು ತನW ತಂSೆ ಮತುF #ಾI /ೆಸನ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 40,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ೕd ತನW ತಂSೆ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ B ರಂಗAಾ3ಮಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಹHೆಗು ಸGೆD ನಂ-65 ರ&, 1-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಮತುF ತನW #ಾI /ೊನWಮm ೋಂ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 54 ರ&, 3 ಎಕ*ೆ 10 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF . ಟ ನ& Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-08 +GೇŒ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ&, ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-08 +GೇŒ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ ಚು ಾವ"ಾ KಾLೆಯ SDA ಆ:ದು6 ಇವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ *ೆಾqD ರೂಂ ನ&, ಕತDವ) ವDEಸುವ GೇHೆಯ&, ಆ*ೋvಗHಾದ 01,02,03,04,05,06,07 ರವ*ೊಂೆ Aೇ ಈೆ< ಸು'ಾರು 1ಂಗಳiಗಳ EಂSೆ ಗು eೌB ನ& ಇರುವ ಆ*ೋv 04- OೇತB ಆನಂy. zೆಪ{)| ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ರೂ^ನ& ಅಕ7ಮ ಕೂಟ Aೇೊಂಡ ಸಮಯದ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ\ನ Gಾ)vFಯ&ನ ಹQnಗಳ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳ&, /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಅಕ7ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ~ಾದ ೆ 'ಾಡಲು ಒಳಸಂಚು ರೂvದು6, ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಆ*ೋv-01 ಸ1ೕಶ ಕು'ಾರ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂದ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ತಮm ಸುಪDನ& ಇದ ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ೕಡು1Fದು6, ಆ*ೋv-08 ರವರು ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ೕ ಅನುW ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ೕd ನಕಲು 32 SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸೃ‹fಸಲು ದುµÉàçÃರ"ೆ ೕd ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವಂದ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 28/08/2021 gÀAzÀÄ 50,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/08/2021 gÀAzÀÄ 50,000/ gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 28/09/2021 gÀAzÀÄ 10,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 12/10/2021 gÀAzÀÄ 20,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 17/05/2022 gÀAzÀÄ 50,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಅಂದ*ೆ ಒಟುf 1,80,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಲಂಚವ£Áß: ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಹHೆಗು ಸGೆD ನಂ-65 ರ&, ತನW ಅ.– Xೕಬಮm ೋಂ Xೕಬಯ) ರವರು AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೇ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ತನW ಅ.– Xೕಬಮm ೋಂ Xೕಬಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಹHೆಗು ಸGೆD ನಂ-65 ರ& 1-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf ನ& Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> ವಂ‡, ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾD ೆಲಸೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-09 ಜಗೕಶ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-09 ಜಗೕಶ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು, ಟೂfರು /ೋಬQ. ಎB. /ೊಸಹQn ವೃತFದ ಾ7ಮ Vೆಾ>`ಾbಾ:ದು6 ಇವರು ತನW Gಾ)vFಯ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ತನW ಸಂಬಂ`ಕ*ಾದ *ಾಮಕೃಷ€, B Sಾಸಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ #ಾನು ಕತDವ) ವDEಸುವ Sೊಡˆ ಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ& 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ತನW ಸಂಬಂ`ಕ*ಾದ *ಾಮಕೃಷ€, B Sಾಸಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ಾ7ಮ Vೆಾ>`ಾbಾದ #ಾನು /ೆಸರು ಬ*ೆದು Aೇದು6, ಈ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ&ನ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಆ*ೋv-09 ಜಗೕಶ ರವರ ಸಂಬಂ`ಕ*ಾದ *ಾಮಕೃಷ€ B Sಾಸಪ• ರವರನುW ಒಳೊಂಡಂ#ೆ ಒಟುf 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಆSೇಶದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಕಂಪ{)ಟ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[ ಆ:ದು6, ಆ*ೋv-09 ಜಗೕಶ ರವರು ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-10 ಕVೆ&ೕಶ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ&, ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-10 ಕVೆ&ೕಶ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂಕು, /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ. ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 13 ರ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 54 ರ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€, ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-11- ಕVೆ&ೕಶ ರವ*ೊಂೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ:, ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-13 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೇ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಒಟುf: 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ 33 ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇಸಲು 1ೕ'ಾD ಆ*ೋv-11 +ಜಯಕು'ಾ ರವರ ಸಮಮ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€, ರವೆ 9,00,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ನಗSಾ: ೊಟುf, ತನW ಕzೆಯವ*ಾದ /ೆ0.ಎ . ಕು'ಾರಯ) B ಸಣ€ದ6ಯ) ಮತುF ಇತ*ೆ 9 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 13 ರ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ಾಗೂ ತನW ‡ಕ>ಪ• ಮ/ಾಂಗಪ• B ದ6*ಾಮಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf. ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-54 ರ&, 3-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ /ೆಸರನುW ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-11 +ಜಯ ಕು'ಾ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ&, ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-11 +ಜಯಕು'ಾ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು, /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ, ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 13 ರ& ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-10- ಕVೆ&ೕಶ gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ Kಾ^ೕVಾ:, ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 13 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೇ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಹಣ ೊಡುವ ಒlÄÖ 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW ಸಾD SಾಖVಾ1ಗHಾದ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇಸಲು 1ೕ'ಾD ಆ*ೋv- 10 ಕVೆ&ೕ2 ರವರ ಕzೆIಂದ ತನW ಸಮಮ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ 9,00,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ನಗSಾ: ೊd ಆ*ೋvತರ ಈ ಕೃತ)ೆ> ದುµÉàçÃರ"ೆ ೕd ಆ*ೋv-10 ಕVೆ&ೕಶ ರವರ ಕzೆಯವ*ಾದ /ೆ0.ಎ . ಕು'ಾರಯ) B ಸಣ€ದ6ಯ) ಮತುF ಇತ*ೆ 9 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ಪ]ರ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 13 ರ& ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸ• ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-12 ಾ*ಾಯಣ, ೆ. +. ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-12 ಾ*ಾಯಣ, ೆ.+, ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಟೂfರು /ೋಬQ, *ೆ+ನೂ) ಇB˜ ~ೆಕf ಆ:ದು6 ಇವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಟೂfರು /ೋಬQ, (ತನW /ೋಬQ Gಾ)vFಯ) Sೊಡˆ ಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& /ಾಗೂ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 126 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ತನW ಅಣ€ ೋ+ಂದ*ಾಜು B Gೆಂಕeಾಚಲ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ #ಾನು ಕತDವ) ವDEಸುವ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ& 4-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 126 ರ&, 3-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇದು6, 34 ನಂತರ ನಕಲು ಸೃಷf ೆಯ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ&ನ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಅಸಲು SಾಖVಾ1ಗHೆಂದು ಉಪ†ೕ:ದ6ಂದ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ&ನ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಆ*ೋv-12 ಾ*ಾಯಣ ರವರ ಅಣ€ ೋ+ಂದ*ಾಜು ರವರನುW ಒಳೊಂಡಂ#ೆ ಒಟುf 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಆSೇಶದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಕಂಪ{)ಟ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[ ಆ:ದು6, ಆ*ೋv-12 ಾ*ಾಯಣ ರವರು ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುyಧ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂಕು /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& /ಾಗೂ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು, ಕಸlಾ /ೋಬQ, ಹHೇಗು ಸGೆD ನಂ- 65 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& #ಾನು ಅ`ಕೃತ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೆ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಆ*ೋv-13 ರವರು ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€, ಆ*ೋv-14 *ಾಮಚಂದ7ಯ) ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ಹHೇಗು ಸGೆD ನಂ- 65 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ರವೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ೆಲವ] ಜನಂದ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ಮತುF 54 ರ&, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ತಮm /ೆಸೆ ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಮಧ)ವ1Dbಾ: ೆಲಸವನುW ವDE ಆ*ೋv-14 *ಾಮಚಂದ7ಯ) ರವರು ಜನಂದ ತVಾ 10,000/ ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುW ಪzೆದು ತಂದು ೊ|fದ6 ಹಣವನುW ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ೕd ಹಣ ಪzೆದ ಜನೆ ಾ)ಯಯುತGಾ: ಜ^ೕನನುW ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡSೇ gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ /ಾಗೂ ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) ರವರು ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ& 3-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾDರ ಜ^ೕನುW ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ¼ÉÃUÀÄ©â ಸGೆD ನಂ- 65 ರ& 1-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf ನ& /ೆಸರನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7 ಆ*ೋv-14 *ಾಮಚಂದ7ಯ) ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-14 *ಾಮಚಂದ7ಯ) ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ. ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& #ಾ ಾಗೕ ಅಥGಾ ತಮm ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ)*ಾಗVೇ bಾರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಅ`ಕೃತ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೆ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಆ*ೋv-14 ರವರು ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€, ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) 35 ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಾಂಕ: 18/11/2021 ರಂದು 10,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಮತುF ಾಂಕ: 01/12/2021 ರಂದು 10,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಅಂದ*ೆ ಒಟುf: 20,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ( •ೕB ~ೇ ) ಮೂಲಕ ೕd ತನW #ಾI ಲ™ಮm ೋಂ Vೇš ಹನುಮಂತಯ) ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 3-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ /ಾಗೂ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ೆಲವ] ಜನಂದ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-31 ಮತುF 54 ರ&, ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ತಮm /ೆಸೆ ಮಂಜೂರು 'ಾdೊಡುವ]Sಾ: ನಂ ಮಧ)ವ1Dbಾ: ೆಲಸವನುW ವDE ಜನಂದ ತVಾ 10,000/ ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಆ*ೋv-13 Sೇವ*ಾಜಯ) ರವೆ ೕd ಹಣ ಪzೆದ ಜನೆ gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-15 +ನŽ ಕು'ಾ, .. ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-15 +ನŽ ಕು'ಾ, .. ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಟೂfರು /ೋಬQ, Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& /ಾಗೂ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು, ಕಸlಾ /ೋಬQ, 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& #ಾ ಾಗೕ ಅಥGಾ ತಮm ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ)*ಾಗೕ bಾರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಅ`ಕೃತ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೆ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಆ*ೋv-15 ರವರು ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಒಟುf 5,00,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ನಗSಾ: ೕd ತನW ತಂSೆ ..ಆ. ಗಂಾಧರAಾ3^ B ../ೆ0. *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು /ಾಗೂ ತನW #ಾI ಅನಸೂಯ ೋಂ ..ಆ. ಗಂಾಧರAಾ3^ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಮತುF ತನW ‡ಕ>ಪ• ..ಆ. ಮ/ಾSೇವ B ../ೆ0. *ಾಜಣ€ ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 127 ರ&, 2-00 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-16 ಪ7ಾ2. v. B Vೇš ~ಾಂಡು ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-16 ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ RRT KಾLೆಯ FDA ೌಕರ*ಾ:ದು6 ಇವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಗು 36 #ಾಲೂಕು Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\FಗQೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಸಹಕ Sೊಡˆ ಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ›ೈ ಒಟುf 06 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[ೆ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇIಂದ ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ಸEbಾದ ನಂತರ ›ೈ ಅನುW ಆ*ೋv-19 ರ+ೕ2 ರವರ ದುµÉàçÃರ"ೆIಂದ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಕ5ೇೆ #ೆೆದುೊಂಡು /ೋಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ¬ÄlÄÖ MvÁÛAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ 6, 000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ zÉÆqÀØUÀÄtÂ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA-95 gÀ ¥sÉÊ¯ï C£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, ¥sÉÊ¯ï ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಕ5ೇIಂದ ಆœೇಪ"ೆ†ಂೆ Gಾಪಸು˜ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ›ೈ ನ&, ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು /ೇQದ 4 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸರನುW ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ಗಮನೆ> ತರSೇ Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು #ಾನು Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಜ^ೕನು 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ಸಹಕ, ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವಂದ ಾಂಕ:05/05/2022 gÀAzÀÄ 2,000/ gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಾಂಕ: 06/05/2022 gÀAzÀÄ 2,000/- ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ¥ÉÃ ಮೂಲಕ ಪzೆದುೊಂdದು6, ಒಟುf 10,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂdದು6, ಆ*ೋv-16 ಪ7ಾ2 ರವರು ಹಣದ ಆAೆಾ: ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾDರೆ>, gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚, ಆ. B ರಘž ಾಥ*ಾR ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-17 ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು, ಅQಲುಘಟf, ಾ7ಮದ ಾ7ಮ Vೆ\>ಗ*ಾ:ದು6, ಇವರು †ೕಜ ೆ =ೕ*ೆೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಕ5ೇಯ& ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಆಪF ಸ/ಾಯಕ ಾ: ಕತDವ)ವನುW ವDEಸು1Fದು6 ಈತನು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು Sೊಡˆ ಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಒಟುf 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\FಗQೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಸಹಕ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ›ೈ ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇIಂದ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಕ5ೇೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಈ ›ೈ +OಾರGಾ: ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವ*ೊಂೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಹಣೆ> lೇdೆIಟುf ಒ#ಾFಯದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಒಟುf 2,00,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ( ಎರಡು ಲ ರೂಗಳi ) ಆ*ೋv-18 ‰ೋ 'ಾಷD ರವರ ಸಮಮ ಲಂಚವ ಾW: ಪzೆದು Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಜ^ೕನು 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಸEbಾಗುವವ*ೆೆ ›ಾVೋ ಅŸ 'ಾd ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ಸಹಕದು6, ತLಾ ಾಲದ& ಆ*ೋv-17 ರವಂದ 1,50,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW ಅ'ಾನತುF ಪdೊಂdದು6, ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚ ಆ. ರವರು ಹಣದ ಆAೆಾ: ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. 37 ಆ*ೋv-18 ‰ೋ 'ಾಷD ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-18 ‰ೋ 'ಾಷD ರವರು ತುಮಕೂರು .Vೆ&ಯ 1ಪಟೂರು, ತುರುGೇೆ*ೆ, ಗು, X*ಾ ಮತುF ೊರಟೆ*ೆ #ಾಲೂ&ಕುಗಳ& ( ಒಟುf 5 #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ) ಭೂ^ ೇಂದ7ದ eೆ\Wಕ ಕನ˜ eೆಂš ಆ: ಕತDವ) ವDEಸು1Fದು6 ಈತನು ಆ*ೋv- 02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಗು #ಾಲೂಕು Sೊಡˆ ಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಒಟುf 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\FಗQೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಸಹಕ Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ›ೈ 'ಾ0D -2022 ೇ Aಾನ& ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇIಂದ ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪ+hಾಾ`ಾಗಳ ಕ5ೇೆ ಬಂSಾಗ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರು ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚ ಆ. ರವೆ ಹಣವನುW ೊಡುವ ಸಮಯದ&, ಆ*ೋv-18 ‰ೋ 'ಾಷD ರವರು /ಾಜದು6 ಆ*ೋvತರ ಈ ಕೃತ)ೆ> ದುµÉàçÃರ"ೆ ೕd Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಜ^ೕನು 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಸಹಕ #ಾನು hಾ:bಾ: ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವಂದ ಾಂಕ: 07/06/2022 ರಂದು 10,000/ ರೂ ಹಣವನುW •ೕB ~ೇ ಮೂಲಕ ಪzೆದುೊಂdದು6, ಆ*ೋv-17 ಪ]ೕ‚ ಆ. ರವಂದ 20,000/ ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು, ಹಣದ ಆAೆಾ: ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv -19 ರ+ೕ2 ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ 12ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv 19 ರ+ೕ2 ರವರು #ಾಲೂಕು ಕOೇಯ& XರAೆFೕSಾ ಆ: PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ FvÀ£ÀÄ UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:¹§âA¢ ¹.Dgï.15/2021-22 ಾಂಕ: 01/10/2021 ರ ಆSೇಶದ ೕ#ಾ) #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಕ5ೇಯ&, ಚು ಾವ"ಾ XರAೆFೕSಾ ‰ೊ#ೆೆ ಹಕು> SಾಖVೆ KಾLೆಯ ಅ.D +VೇGಾ, ¨sÀÆ«Ä ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ 3 & 9 ¥ÉÊPÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉÃ¸ï 11 E CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß RRT XರAೆFೕSಾ ರವರ ಸಹ†ೕಗSೊಂೆ +VೇGಾ 'ಾಡುವ ಕತDವ) ವDEಸು1Fದು6 ಈತನು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಕಯಣ€ gÀªÀjAzÀ ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ¬ÄlÄÖ MvÁÛAiÀÄ¢AzÀ D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ¨ÉÊAQAUï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ««zsÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ MlÄÖ 1.43,500/ gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು Sೊಡˆಗು[ ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಒಟುf 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\FಗQೆ Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ರವೆ ಸಹಕ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ›ೈ ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವರ ಸEbಾದ ಬQಕ RRT KಾLೆಯ ಆ*ೋv-16 ಪ7ಾಶ ರವರ ಬQ ಇSಾ6ಗ ಆ*ೋv-19 ರ+ೕ2 ರವರು ಆ*ೋv- 16 ರವೆ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 95 ರ ›ೈ ಅನುW ಎ. . ರವರ ಕ5ೇೆ ತಲುvಸಲು ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಮುSಾ6ಂ ೊಡಲು ಆ*ೋv- 16 ರವೆ ದುµÉàçÃರ"ೆ ೕdದ6ಲ&Sೆ ಸGೆD ನಂ-95 ರ ಜ^ೕನು 10 ಜನ ಅನ`ಕೃತ ವ)\Fಗಳ /ೆಸೆ 38 Lಾ#ೆ ಪಹ[bಾಗಲು ಸಹಕ ಸಾD ೌಕರ ಾ: ಹಣದ ಆAೆಾ: ತನW ಅ`ಾರವನುW ದುರುಪ†ೕಗಪdೊಂಡು ಸಾD ೆಲಸೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-20 ಅಲ&ಮಪ7ಭು ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-20 ಅಲಲ&ಮಪ7ಭು ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ& /ಾಗೂ lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಸGೆD ನಂ- 14 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನ&, #ಾ ಾಗೕ ಅಥGಾ ತಮm ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ)*ಾಗೕ bಾರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಅ`ಕೃತ AಾಗುವQSಾರರು ಅಲ&Sೆ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಆ*ೋv-20 ರವರು ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-31 ರ&, ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW /ಾಗೂ lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಸGೆD ನಂ- 14 ರ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ ರವೆ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ 50,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಸಂSಾಯ 'ಾd ಆ*ೋv -20 ಅಲ&ಮ ಪ7ಭು ರವರು ತನW /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು /ಾಗೂ lೋಡ1ಮmನಹQn, ಸGೆD ನಂ- 14 ರ& 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ /ಾಗೂ 1¥ÀÆàರು ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ 124 ರ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ"ೆಗಳ& ತನW ಕzೆಯವ*ಾದ ಬಸವ*ಾಜು B Xವಣ€, ಬಸವ*ಾಜು B ಮೂqÀèಯ) Xವಂಗಯ) B ನರಸಯ) lೋರಯ) B ‡ಕ>’ಣ ರವರ /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಬ*ೆದು ಇವರ /ೆಸರುಗQೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸೃ‹f 'ಾd ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾdರು#ಾF*ೆಂತ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. ಆ*ೋv-21 ಅಣ€ಪ•Aಾ3^ ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ& ನಮೂರುವ ಆ*ೋv-21 ಅಣ€ಪ•Aಾ3^ ರವರು ಗು #ಾಲೂ&ಕು /ಾಗಲGಾd /ೋಬQ, ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ ಸಾDರ ಜ^ೕನ& #ಾ ಾಗೕ ಅಥGಾ ತಮm ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ)*ಾಗೕ bಾರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಅ`ಕೃತ AಾಗುವQSಾರ ಅಲ&Sೆ ಇದ6ರೂ ಸ/ಾ ಆ*ೋv-21 ರವರು ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€. ರವರ ‰ೊ#ೆ Kಾ^ೕVಾ: ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf, ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ-31 ರ&, ಇರುವ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQಸುವ ಉSೆ6ೕಶಂದ ಆ*ೋv-02 ಕಯಣ€ರವೆ ಆB VೈB lಾ)ಂ\ಂ… ಮೂಲಕ 3,50,000/ ರೂಗಳನುW ಸಂSಾಯ 'ಾd ತನW #ಾI ೌರಮm ೋಂ ಾ*ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ 2 ಗುಂeೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು /ಾಗೂ ತನW ಅಕ> Kಾಂತ B ಾ*ಾಯಣಪ• ರವರ /ೆಸೆ 39 ಇSೇ ಯಕ>ಲಕeೆf ಾ7ಮದ ಸGೆD ನಂ- 31 ರ&, 4 ಎಕ*ೆ ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನು ಇರುವಂ#ೆ ದರLಾಸುF .ಸf, ಎಂ.ಆ. .ಸf ಮತುF ೈ ಬರಹದ ಪಹ[ .ಸf ಗಳ& /ೆಸರುಗಳನುW Aೇ ಸಾDರೆ> gೕಸ 'ಾd ಸಾD ಜ^ೕನನುW ಕಬQರು#ಾF*ೆಂ#ಾ ಆ*ೋvಯ +ರುದk ಈ Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7. Gೇದ ೆ, 1. ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ&, ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ಮತುF ಆ*ೋv-19 ರ+ೕಶ ರವರನುW ಅ †ೕಜ ೆೆ ಒಳಪdಸಲು ಅನುಮ1 ೋ ~ಾ7SೇXಕ ಆಯುಕFೆ ಪತ7 ವ)ವ/ಾರ 'ಾdದು6, ಅನುಮ1 ಆSೇಶ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 173 (8) .ಆ.v.. ೕ#ಾ) ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> ಸ&ೊಳnVಾಗುವ]ದು. 2. ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ& ಕೃತ) ನzೆದ ಸŠಳದ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಪzೆಯlೇಾ:ದು6 ಪzೆದುೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 173 (8) .ಆ.v. ೕ#ಾ) ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> ಸ&ೊಳnVಾಗುವ]ದು, 3. ಪ7ಕರಣದ& ಆ*ೋv-04 OೇತB ಆನಂy ರವರ ವಂಶವೃ ೕಡಲು ೋ Xವgಗ<, #ಾಲೂ&ಕು ತಹೕVಾ6 ರವೆ ಪತ7 ವ)ವ/ಾರ 'ಾdದು6 ವಂಶವೃ SಾಖVಾ1 ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 173 (8) .ಆ.v.. ೕ#ಾ) ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> ಸ&ೊQn.Vಾಗುವ]ದು. 4. ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ&, FSL ತ¡ರ ಪೕœೆೆ ಕಳiEಸಲು ಇನೂW /ೆ‡¢ನ SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸಂಗ7Eಸlೇಾ:ದು6, ಅವ]ಗಳನುW ಸಂಗ7Eದ ನಂತರ FSL ೇಂದ7ದ ೈ ಬರಹ ತ¡ರ +hಾಗೆ> SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳನುW ಸ&ೊಂಡು ತ¡ರ ಅ ~ಾ7ಯವನುW ಪzೆದುೊಂಡು ಕಲಂ 173 (8) .ಆ.v.. ೕ#ಾ) ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> ಸ&ೊಳnVಾಗುವ]ದು. 5. ಈ ಪ7ಕರಣದ& ಆ*ೋvತರು /ಾ ಾ)bಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನದ& ಇರುವ]ದಂದ ಈವ*ೆ:ನ ತLೆಯ ಆ‘ಾರದ =ೕ*ೆೆ ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> Sೋwಾ*ೋಪ"ಾ ಪತ7ವನುW ಸ&ೊಳin1Fದು6 ಮುಂನ ತLಾ ಾಲದ&, ಇನೂW /ೆ‡¢ನ AಾœಾSಾರಗಳi ಮತುF SಾಖVಾ1ಗಳi Sೊ*ೆತ& ಅವ]ಗಳನುW ಕಲಂ 173 (8) .ಆ.v.. ೕ#ಾ) ಘನ ಾ)bಾಲಯೆ> ಸ&ೊಳnVಾಗುವ]ದು.” On the said charge sheet, the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused and registered a criminal case. First of the petitions filed before this Court, as 40 observed hereinabove, is Criminal Petition No.11441 of 2022. The order of taking cognizance reads as follows: “Perused the charge sheet and other material before the Court, submitted by the I.O. There is prima- facie case. Cognizance is taken of the offences punishable under Sections 471, 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 109 r/w 149 of IPC. Office to register the case in C.C. in register No. III. Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 are in J.C. Accused No.10 is on court bail. Accused No.19 to 21 are absconding. Issue summons to accused No.10. Issue NBW to accused No.19 to 21 By 11-10-2022.” (Emphasis added) It reads that the charge sheet is perused and prima facie case is found. Cognizance is taken. Except the aforesaid recording/ application of mind, there is no order of taking of cognizance which reflects application of mind. Insofar as accused Nos. 9 to 21 are concerned, though charge sheet refers to their role, they are shown to be absconding on the date of taking of cognizance and NBW is issued. These are the traits of the concerned Court passing orders which bears no application of mind. In this regard, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court. 41 9.1. The Apex Court in SACHIN GARG v. STATE OF U.P.1, had held as follows: “… …. …. 17. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, [(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court.” 9.2. In SHARIF AHMED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2, the Apex Court observes as follows: “… …. …. 6. We would like to elaborate on certain aspects, as submission of the chargesheet is for taking cognisance 12024 SCC OnLine SC 82 22024 SCC OnLine SC 726 42 and summoning of the accused by the Magistrate, which stages are of considerable importance and significance. … …. …. 14. In the context of the present issue, it would be apt to refer to Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code, along with the provisions relating to contents of charge, namely, Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code, which read as under: “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. xxxxxx 204. Issue of process.—(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be— (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process- fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. 43 (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87. xxxxxx 211. Contents of charge.—(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only. (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed. 212. Particulars as to time, place and person.—(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 219: 44 Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year. 213. When manner of committing offence must be stated.—When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. xxxxxx 218. Separate charges for distinct offences.—(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. 15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu Kujur (supra) refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police10, and discusses the power and the role of the Magistrate when he receives the police report and the options available to him, in the following words: “14. When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or 45 (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.” 16. It is in this context that the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 of the Code become important. Clause (a) of Section 190 states that the Magistrate can take cognisance of an offence on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Clause (b) relates to a situation where the Magistrate receives a police report carrying such facts, i.e., facts which constitute such offence. In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar11 this Court referred to the options available to the Magistrate on how to proceed in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, and held: “11… The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. (See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, [(1989) 2 SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306 : AIR 1989 SC 885].) 46 12. The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the first information report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police held that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for issue of a notice in that regard. 13. We may add here that the expressions “charge-sheet” or “final report” are not used in the Code, but it is understood in Police Manuals of several States containing the rules and the regulations to be a report by the police filed under Section 170 of the Code, described as a “charge-sheet”. In case of reports sent under Section 169 i.e. where there is no sufficiency of evidence to justify forwarding of a case to a Magistrate, it is termed variously i.e. referred charge, final report or summary. Section 173 in terms does not refer to any notice to be given to raise any protest to the report submitted by the police. Though the notice issued under some of the Police Manuals states it to be a notice under Section 173 of the Code, there is nothing in Section 173 specifically providing for such a notice.” 17. This Court in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] while referring to Sections 190 and 204 of the Code has observed that the expression “cognizance” in Section 190 merely means “becoming aware of”, and when used with reference to a court or a Judge it connotes “to take notice of judicially”. It indicates the juncture at which the court or Magistrate takes judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such an offence. This is different from initiation of proceedings. Rather, it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by a Magistrate or Judge. At this stage, the Magistrate has to keep in mind the averments in the complaint or the police report, and has to evaluate whether 47 there is sufficient ground for initiation of proceedings. This is not the same as the consideration of sufficient grounds for conviction, as whether evidence is sufficient for supporting the conviction or not, can be determined only at the stage of trial, and not at the stage of cognizance. This aspect is important and will be subsequently referred to when we examine the decision of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] , and the observations therein which have been referred to on several occasions in other judgments. 18. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issue of summons and this is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons. Nevertheless, the requirement of the Code is that the summons is issued when it appears to the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Summons is issued to the person against whom the legal proceedings have commenced. Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). As a sequitur, keeping in mind both the language of Section 204 of the Code and the penal consequences, the Magistrate is mandated to form an opinion as to whether there exists sufficient ground for summons to be issued. While deciding whether summons is to be issued to a person, the Magistrate can take into consideration any prima facie improbabilities arising in the case. The parameters on which a summoning order can be interfered with are well settled by the decision of this Court in Bhushan Kumar [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] . The Magistrate in terms of Section 204 of the Code is required to exercise his judicial discretion with a degree of caution, even when he is not required to record reasons, on whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Proceedings initiated by a criminal court are generally not interfered with by the High Courts, unless necessary to secure the ends of justice. [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] … …. …. 48 21. There is an inherent connect between the charge- sheet submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, cognizance which is taken under Section 190 of the Code, issue of process and summoning of the accused under Section 204 of the Code, and thereupon issue of notice under Section 251 of the Code, or the charge in terms of Chapter XVII of the Code. The details set out in the charge- sheet have a substantial impact on the efficacy of procedure at the subsequent stages. The charge-sheet is integral to the process of taking cognizance, the issue of notice and framing of charge, being the only investigative document and evidence available to the court till that stage. Substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in the charge-sheet are a key resource for a Magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges, etc. … …. …. 25. It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him. The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognizance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code. In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other options which are available to him. … …. …. 29. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in mind and should show with sufficient particularity and clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When the report complies with the said requirements, the court concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take cognizance and also proceed by issuing summons to the accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and the documents placed on record by the investigating officer. 49 If the order of cognizance is considered on the bedrock of elucidation of the Apex Court, the unmistakable inference would be its obliteration, as it suffers from blatant non-application of mind. As a matter of fact, there is not even a semblance of application of mind. PUBLIC SERVANTS: 10. In few of conglomeration of these cases the accused are public servants. The allegation against them is undoubtedly during the discharge of their official duties. The accused are not even referred to as public servants in the order of taking of cognizance. Insofar as public servants are concerned, in few of these cases, there ought to have been sanction at the time of taking of cognizance, as obtaining under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows: “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.— (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013— 50 (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “Central Government” were substituted. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 166-A, Section 166-B, Section 354, Section 354- A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 370, Section 375, Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB] or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted. 51 (3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3-B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.” Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has borne interpretation by the Apex Court in plethora of cases, a few of which I deem it appropriate to notice. 52 10.1. The Apex Court in A. SRINIVASULU v. STATE OF T.N.3, observes as follows: “.….. .….. .….. Part I (Revolving around Section 197 of the Code) 32. There is no dispute about the fact that A-1 to A-4, being officers of a company coming within the description contained in the Twelfth item of S. 21 of the IPC, were ‘public servants’ within the definition of the said expression under S. 21 of the IPC. A-1 to A-4 were also public servants within the meaning of the expression under S. 2(c)(iii) of the PC Act. Therefore, there is a requirement of previous sanction both under S. 197(1) of the Code and under S. 19(1) of the PC Act, for prosecuting A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under the IPC and the PC Act. 33. Until the amendment to the PC Act under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 16 of 2018), with effect from 26-7-2018, the requirement of a previous sanction under S. 19(1)(a) was confined only to a person “who is employed”. On the contrary, S. 197(1) made the requirement of previous sanction necessary, both in respect of “any person who is” and in respect of “any person who was” employed. By the amendment under Act 16 of 2018, S. 19(1)(a) of the PC Act was suitably amended so that previous sanction became necessary even in respect of a person who “was employed at the time of commission of the offence”. 34. The case on hand arose before the coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 16 of 2018). Therefore, no previous sanction under S. 19(1) of the PC Act was necessary insofar as A-1 was concerned, as he had retired by the time a final report was filed. He actually retired on 31-8-1997, after 7 months of registration of the FIR (31-1-1997) and 5 years before the filing of the final report (16-7-2002) and 6 years before the Special Court took cognizance (4-7-2003). But previous sanction under S. 19(1) of the PC Act was required in 3(2023) 13 SCC 705 53 respect of A-3 and A-4, as they were in service at the time of the Special Court taking cognizance. Therefore, the Agency sought sanction, but the Management of BHEL refused to grant sanction not once but twice, insofar as A-3 and A-4 are concerned. 35. It is by a quirk of fate or the unfortunate circumstances of having been born at a time (and consequently retiring at a particular time) that the benevolence derived by A- 3 and A-4 from their employer, was not available to A-1. Had he continued in service, he could not have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under the PC Act, in view of the stand taken by BHEL. 36. It appears that BHEL refused to accord sanction by a letter dated 24-11-2000, providing reasons, but the CVC insisted, vide a letter dated 8-2-2001. In response to the same, a fresh look was taken by the CMD of BHEL. Thereafter, by a decision dated 2-5- 2001, he refused to accord sanction on the ground that it will not be in the commercial interest of the Company nor in the public interest of an efficient, quick and disciplined working in PSU. 37. The argument revolving around the necessity for previous sanction under S. 197(1) of the Code, has to be considered keeping in view the above facts. It is true that the refusal to grant sanction for prosecution under the PC Act in respect of A-3 and A- 4 may not have a direct bearing upon the prosecution of A-1. But it would certainly provide the context in which the culpability of A- 1 for the offences both under the IPC and under the PC Act has to be determined. 38. It is admitted by the respondent-State that no previous sanction under S. 197(1) of the Code was sought for prosecuting A-1. The stand of the prosecution is that the previous sanction under S. 197(1) may be necessary only when the offence is allegedly committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”. Almost all judicial precedents on S. 197(1) have turned on these words. Therefore, we may now take a quick but brief look at some of the decisions. 39. Dr Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown3 is a decision of the Federal Court, cited with approval by this court in several 54 decisions. It arose out of the decision of the Lahore High Court against the decision of the Sessions Court which acquitted the appellant of the charges under Ss. 409 and 477-A IPC for want of consent of the Governor. Sir S. Varadachariar, with whose opinion Gwyer C.J., concurred, examined the words, “any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty” appearing in S. 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which required the consent of the Governor. The Federal Court observed at the outset that this question is substantially one of fact, to be determined with reference to the act complained of and the attendant circumstances. 40. The Federal Court then referred by way of analogy to a number of rulings under S. 197 of the Code and held as follows:— “The reported decisions on the application of S. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not by any means uniform. In most of them, the actual conclusion will probably be found to be unexceptionable, in view of the facts of each ease; but, in some, the test has been laid down in terms which it is difficult to accept as exhaustive or correct. Much the same may be said even of decisions pronounced in England, on the language, of similar statutory provisions (see observations in Booth v. Clive. It does not seem to me necessary to review in detail the decisions given under S. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code which may roughly be classified as falling into three groups, so far as they attempted to state something in the nature of a test. In one group of cases, it is insisted that there must be something in the nature of the act complained of that attaches it to the official character of the person doing it: cf. In re Sheik Abdul Khadir Saheb; Kamisetty Raja Rao v. Ramaswamy, Amanat Ali v. King- Emperor, King-Emperor v. Maung Bo Maung and Gurushidayya Shantivirayya Kulkarni v. King-Emperor. In another group, more stress has been laid on the circumstance that the official character or status of the accused gave him the opportunity to commit the offence. It seems to me that the first is the correct view. In the third group of cases, stress is laid almost exclusively on the fact that it was at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty that the alleged offence was said to have been committed [see Gangaraju v. Venki, quoting from Mitra's Commentary on the (criminal Procedure Code). The use of the expression “while acting” etc., in S. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (particularly its introduction by way of amendment in 1923) has been held to lend some support to this view. While I do not wish to ignore the significance of the time 55 factor, it does not seem to me right to make it the test. To take an illustration suggested in the course of the argument, if a medical officer, while on duty in the hospital, is alleged to have committed rape on one of the patients or to have stolen a jewel from the patient's person, it is difficult to believe that it was the intention of the Legislature that he could not be prosecuted for such offences except with the previous sanction of the Local Government” 41. It is seen from the portion of the decision extracted above that the Federal Court categorised in Dr Hori Ram Singh (supra), the decisions given under S. 197 of the Code into three groups namely (i) cases where it was held that there must be something in the nature of the act complained of that attaches it to the official character of the person doing it; (ii) cases where more stress has been laid on the circumstance that the official character or status of the accused gave him the opportunity to commit the offence; and (iii) cases where stress is laid almost exclusively on the fact that it was at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty that the alleged offence was said to have been committed. While preferring the test laid down in the first category of cases, the Federal Court rejected the test given in the third category of cases by providing the illustration of a medical officer committing rape on one of his patients or committing theft of a jewel from the patient's person. 42. In Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari4 a Constitution Bench of this Court was concerned with the interpretation to be given to the words, “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” in S. 197 of the Code. After referring to the decision in Dr Hori Ram Singh, the Constitution Bench summed up the result of the discussion, in paragraph 19 by holding: “There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.” 56 43. In State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh v. Ganesh Chandra Jew5, a two Member Bench of this Court explained that the protection under S. 197 has certain limits and that it is available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. The Court also explained that if in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. 44. The above decision in State of Orissa (supra) was followed (incidentally by the very same author) in K. Kalimuthu v. State by DSP6 and Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar7. 45. In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab through CBI8, this Court took note of almost all the decisions on the point and summarized the principles emerging therefrom, in paragraph 39 as follows: “39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder: 39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. 39.2. Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent S. 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. 39.3. Even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under S. 197 CrPC. There cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule. 57 39.4. In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under S. 197 CrPC, but such relation to duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of S. 197 CrPC would apply. ***” 46. In D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain9, this Court explained that sanction is required not only for acts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for any act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority. This Court also held that to decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. 47. Keeping in mind the above principles, if we get back to the facts of the case, it may be seen that the primary charge against A-1 is that with a view to confer an unfair and undue advantage upon A-5, he directed PW 16 to go for limited tenders by dictating the names of four bogus companies, along with the name of the chosen one and eventually awarded the contract to the chosen one. It was admitted by the prosecution that at the relevant point of time, the Works Policy of BHEL marked as Exhibit P-11, provided for three types of tenders, namely (i) Open Tender; (ii) Limited/Restricted Tender; and (iii) Single Tender. 48. Paragraph 4.2.1 of the Works Policy filed as Ext. P-11 and relied upon by the prosecution laid down that as a rule, only works up to Rs 1,00,000 should be awarded by Restricted Tender. However, paragraph 4.2.1 also contained a rider which reads as follows: “4.2.1. … However even in cases involving more than Rs 1,00,000 if it is felt necessary to resort to Restricted Tender due to urgency or any other reasons it would be open to the General Managers or other officers authorised for this purpose to do so after recording reasons therefor.” 58 49. Two things are clear from the portion of the Works Policy extracted above. One is that a deviation from the rule was permissible. The second is that even General Managers were authorised to take a call, to deviate from the normal rule and resort to Restricted Tender. 50. Admittedly, A-1 was occupying the position of Executive Director, which was above the rank of a General Manager. According to him he had taken a call to go for Restricted Tender, after discussing with the Chairman and Managing Director. The Chairman and Managing Director, in his evidence as PW 28, denied having had any discussion in this regard. 51. For the purpose of finding out whether A-1 acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty, it is enough for us to see whether he could take cover, rightly or wrongly, under any existing policy. Paragraph 4.2.1 of the existing policy extracted above shows that A-1 at least had an arguable case, in defence of the decision he took to go in for Restricted Tender. Once this is clear, his act, even if alleged to be lacking in bona fides or in pursuance of a conspiracy, would be an act in the discharge of his official duty, making the case come within the parameters of S. 197(1) of the Code. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have obtained previous sanction. The Special Court as well as the High Court did not apply their mind to this aspect. 52. Shri Padmesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance upon the observation contained in paragraph 50 of the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab10. It reads as follows: “50. The offence of cheating under S. 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Ss. 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence.” 59 53. On the basis of the above observation, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. 54. But the above contention in our opinion is farfetched. The observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal (supra) are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case. If by their very nature, the offences under Ss. 420, 468, 471 and 120- B cannot be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, the same logic would apply with much more vigour in the case of offences under the PC Act. S. 197 of the Code does not carve out any group of offences that will fall outside its purview. Therefore, the observations contained in para 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal cannot be taken as carving out an exception judicially, to a statutory prescription. In fact, Parkash Singh Badal cites with approval the other decisions (authored by the very same learned Judge) where this Court made a distinction between an act, though in excess of the duty, was reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty and an act which was merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. Interestingly, the proposition laid down in Rakesh Kumar Mishra (supra) was distinguished in paragraph 49 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal, before the Court made the observations in paragraph 50 extracted above. 55. No public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence. Therefore, if the observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty. The requirement of a previous sanction will thus be rendered redundant by such an interpretation. 60 56. It must be remembered that in this particular case, the FIR actually implicated only four persons, namely PW 16, A-3, A-4 an A-5. A-1 was not implicated in the FIR. It was only after a confession statement was made by PW-16 in the year 1998 that A-1 was roped in. The allegations against A-1 were that he got into a criminal conspiracy with the others to commit these offences. But the Management of BHEL refused to grant sanction for prosecuting A-3 and A-4, twice, on the ground that the decisions taken were in the realm of commercial wisdom of the Company. If according to the Management of the Company, the very same act of the co-conspirators fell in the realm of commercial wisdom, it is inconceivable that the act of A-1, as part of the criminal conspiracy, fell outside the discharge of his public duty, so as to disentitle him for protection under S. 197(1) of the Code. 57. In view of the above, we uphold the contention advanced on behalf of A-1 that the prosecution ought to have taken previous sanction in terms of S. 197(1) of the Code, for prosecuting A-1, for the offences under the IPC.” 10.2. The Apex Court, in SUNEETI TOTEJA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH4, observes as follows: “…. …. …. 24. The question therefore is whether the sanction was necessary in the present case for the prosecution of the appellant, or whether the Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance against the appellant without there being any sanction. 25. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of Section 197 CrPC are reproduced hereinunder: “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.—(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is 42025 SCC OnLine SC 433 61 accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013— (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “Central Government” were substituted. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that subsection will apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring 62 therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted. (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.” 26. The object and purpose of the aforesaid provision was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3761, which reads as follows: “22. … the object and purpose of the said provision is to protect officers and officials of the State from unjustified criminal prosecution while they discharge their duties within the scope and ambit of their powers entrusted to them. A reading 63 of Section 197 of the CrPC would indicate that there is a bar for a Court to take cognizance of such offences which are mentioned in the said provision except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government when the allegations are made against, inter alia, a public servant. There is no doubt that in the instant case the appellant herein was a public servant but the question is, whether, while discharging her duty as a public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the discharge of the said duty which did not require the first respondent herein to take a prior sanction for prosecuting the appellant herein. In this regard, the salient words which are relevant under subsection (1) of Section 197 are “is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction”. Therefore, for the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence which had been committed by him in “discharge of his official duty”. The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty. However, there are a line of judgments which have considered this expression in two different ways which we shall now advert to.” 27. In Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 578 disposed of by a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 20.04.2023, of which one of us (Nagarathna, J.) was a member, it was observed that the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction and thereby Section 197 of the CrPC being flouted is not to be conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether an offence has been committed. The salutary purpose behind Section 197 of the CrPC is protection being accorded to public servants. In paragraphs 28, 29 and 31, it was observed as under: “(28) The State functions through its officers. Functions of the State may be sovereign or not sovereign. But each of the functions performed by every 64 public servant is intended to achieve public good. It may come with discretion. The exercise of the power cannot be divorced from the context in which and the time at which the power is exercised or if it is a case of an omission, when the omission takes place. (29) The most important question which must be posed and answered by the Court when dealing with the argument that sanction is not forthcoming is whether the officer was acting in the exercise of his official duties. It goes further. Even an officer who acts in the purported exercise of his official power is given the protection under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. This is for good reason that the officer when he exercises the power can go about exercising the same fearlessly no doubt with bona fides as public functionaries can act only bona fide. In fact, the requirement of the action being bona fide is not expressly stated in Section 197 of the Cr. P.C., though it is found in many other statutes protecting public servants from action, civil and criminal against them. x x x x (31) One ground which has found favour with the High Court against the appellant is that the appellant, according to the High Court, could raise the issue before the Magistrate. (32) Here we may notice one aspect. When the question arises as to whether an act or omission which constitutes an offence in law has been done in the discharge of official functions by a public servant and the matter is under a mist and it is not clear whether the act is traceable to the discharge of his official functions, the Court may in a given case tarry and allow the proceedings to go on. Materials will be placed before the Court which will make the position clear and a delayed decision on the question may be justified. However, in a case where the act or the omission is indisputably traceable to the discharge of the official duty by the public servant, then for the Court to not accept the objection against cognizance being taken would clearly defeat the salutary purpose which underlies Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. It all depends on the facts and therefore, would have to be decided on a case-to-case basis.” 65 It was concluded that learned Magistrate had erred in the facts of the said case in taking cognizance against the appellant therein contrary to the mandate of Section 197 of the CrPC and on that short ground alone, the appeal was allowed and the proceedings challenged in Section 482 CrPC were quashed. However, it was observed that the same would not stand in the way of the competent authority taking a decision in the matter and/or granting sanction for prosecuting the appellant therein in accordance with law. 28. In another case titled Amrik Singh v. The State of PEPSU, AIR 1955 SC 309, this Court explained the scope of Section 197 of CrPC as follows: “8. … It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary; and that would be so, irrespective of whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would really be a matter of defence on the merits, which would have to be investigated at the trial, and could not arise at the stage of the grant of sanction, which must precede the institution of the prosecution.” The Court thereunder further concluded that: “12 … The result then is that whether sanction is necessary to prosecute a public servant on a charge of criminal misappropriation, will depend on whether the acts complained of hinge on his duties as a public servant. If they do, then sanction is requisite. But if they are unconnected with such duties, then no sanction is necessary.” 29. As per the aforementioned proposition, it is only to be seen if the accused public servant was acting in the 66 performance of his/her official duties, and if the answer is in the affirmative, then prior sanction for their prosecution is a condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It is therefore largely a disputed question of fact here and not a question of law. However, this fact of appellant herein acting in her official capacity is not seriously contested by the respondents herein. In the instant case, the appellant had filed the counter affidavit and interacted with the complainant in her capacity of a Presiding Officer, ICC. The correctness of the allegations with regard to the conduct of the appellant need not be ascertained herein by this Court but the fact that she was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her. The Magistrate therefore erred in proceeding to take cognizance against the appellant without the sanction for prosecution being received from BIS, and since BIS has eventually refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, the prosecution against the appellant could not have been sustained. …. …. …. 32. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without there being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority. Further, the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC and eventually the sanction was expressly denied by the competent authority with respect to the allegations against the appellant. The necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the chargesheet, the summoning order and the consequent steps, if any, taken by the trial court pursuant to the same are liable to be quashed qua the appellant herein and are thus quashed.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 67 In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court noted hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is obliteration of the order of taking cognizance, passed against the public servants in these cases. The cognizance order, in these cases, admittedly does not refer to any sanction being obtained nor the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that any sanction is granted by the Competent Authority to prosecute public servants who are accused Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 19. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance suffers from two illegalities viz., (i) it bears no application of mind and (ii) cognizance is taken against public servants without there being a sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In the light of the order suffering from the aforesaid twin illegalities, the inevitable conclusion would be their obliteration. However, the complaint so made, the investigation so conducted and the charge sheet drawn cannot be found fault with at this stage, as they are shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact. Therefore, liberty would be reserved to the petitioners to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora in the event of need in 68 future. Wherefore, while sustaining the complaint and the charge sheet so filed, the order of taking cognizance on the aforesaid twin illegalities needs to be obliterated. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal Petitions are allowed in part. The order of taking cognizance in each of the cases stand obliterated. (ii) Matters are remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court for two actions viz., (a) Redrawing the order of taking cognizance by an order which will bear application of mind; (b) Taking cognizance against public servants only if an order of sanction is placed before the Court by the prosecution. (iii) The prosecution is at liberty to seek and obtain sanction from the hands of the Competent Authority and place it 69 before the concerned Court. Once sanction is obtained and placed before the concerned Court, the concerned Court is at liberty to proceed further from the stage of taking cognizance. Same goes with private persons who are accused. The proceedings will continue from the stage of taking cognizance, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ/SS

RAVEESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

Judgment text