Bangalore District Court
Chinnamma vs Nagesh on 16 April, 2026
KABC030166352016
Presented on : 10-03-2016
Registered on : 10-03-2016
Decided on : 16-04-2026
Duration : 10 years, 1 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th day of April-2026
:Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G B.A., LL.B.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.6406/2016
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 10.06.2015
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Persons A1.Nagesh
S/o. Papanna,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at.C/o. Gopalappa House,
Koppa Gate, Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
Judgment 2 C.C.No.6406/2016
Rural District.
A2. Umesh ( Split up)
Offence U/sec,.392 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 08.10.2025 and
accused No.1 is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 16.04.2026
Cr.P.C., recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 is Acquitted
Date of Order 16.04.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 th
Addl.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused persons for the offence
punishable U/sec,.392 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.6406/2016
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:
It is alleged that, on 10.06.2015 at about 04.30 PM, the
accused persons with an intention to do the robbery, within
the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station, Double
Road, Royal Lake Front Layout, 8 th Phase, J.P.Nagar, the
accused persons came in their two wheeler bajaj pular bearing
Reg.No.KA-51-EF-2916 and snatched the gold chain of 56
grams from the neck of Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons
have committed the above said alleged offence which is
punishable U/sec,.392 of IPC.
03. During the pendency of the trail, the case against
the accused No.2 is split up in CC.No.40054/2025 as per
order dated: 08.10.2025. After filing the charge sheet,
cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/sec,. 392 of IPC
against the accused No.1, The accused No.1 was released on
bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused
as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge
has been framed and read over to the accused No.1 language
to known to him, wherein he has called upon to prove its case.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.6406/2016
04. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 7 and 9 witnesses this
court issued Summons and Proclamation. even proclamation
duly executed to the said witness, but they never turned up.
Moreover, this case is 10 years old one. Hence, dropped the
above said witnesses. In this regard this court relied on the
following Hon’ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the
Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s
Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980
MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
Judgment 5 C.C.No.6406/2016the summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
Judgment 6 C.C.No.6406/2016
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.6406/2016
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.6406/2016
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul
Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ
112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction
between the two decisions is as to whether
there was remissness and want of diligence on
the part of the prosecuting agency in producing
the witnesses before the Court and therefore the
Judgment 9 C.C.No.6406/2016principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan’s
case applied to the facts of the case with which
the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots
here that in Abdul Hameed Khan’s case, it was
found on the facts that the prosecution was not
at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants
issued to the witnesses had neither been served
nor returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the same
the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to
grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit
the accused on the material on record. We may
note here that in State of Karnataka v.
Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division
Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully
considering all the aforesaid decisions and the
views expressed therein, we are of the view that
if the prosecution had made an application for
the issue of summons to its witnesses either
under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal
Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to
issue summons to the prosecution witnesses
and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the
powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure
Code, as already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
Judgment 10 C.C.No.6406/2016pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not
produce the witnesses after the Court had given
it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then
the Court, being left with no other alternative
would be justified in acquitting the accused for
want of evidence to prove the prosecution case,
under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of
warrant cases instituted on a police report and
under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons
cases, and we answer the two questions
referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.1 to
7 and 9 witnesses are not secured since very long time. Hence,
dropped the same. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
No.1, the prosecution has examined 03 witnesses out of 11
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 8 documents as
Ex.P1 to P.8.
05. Thereafter examination of the accused No.1
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded, the accused No.1 has denied
the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and chosen
to lead his side evidence.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.6406/2016
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, 10.06.2015 at
about 04.30 PM, the accused persons
with an intention to do the robbery,
within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura police station, Double
Road, Royal Lake Front Layout, 8th Phase,
J.P.Nagar, the accused persons came in
their two wheeler bajaj pular bearing
Reg.No.KA-51-EF-2916 and snatched the
gold chain of 56 grams from the neck of
Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons
have committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,392 of IPC?
2. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
Judgment 12 C.C.No.6406/2016REASONS
9. Points No.1: The case of the prosecution is already
narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without
repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on
records.
10. The Cw.11 Parashuramappa, who is examined as
Pw.1 and 2nd IO in this case, he deposed in his evidence before
the court that, On 11.06.2015, after receiving and verifying
the information from Cw-10, he conducted a panchanama on
the same day at the place shown by Cw-1 from 09:30 to 10:30
in the presence of Chasa-2 and 3. Then I verbally appointed
the personnel Cw8 and 9 to find the accused. Later on
04.09.2015 at 08-15 hrs, while Cw-8, 9 and 11 were on night
patrol duty, it was found that, the accused were lying in wait
for a suspicious dacoity in Narayananagar. When they were
questioned, they found that, they had chili powder, a wooden
club and a knife, which were seized in front of the police. At
09-15 PM of the accused along with the seized items, namely 1
wooden stick, an iron knife, a chili powder packet, a button
knife and a motorcycle No. KA-51-EF 2916, were brought
before him at the police station and presented before him.
Cw11 filed a report. Later on the same day, the 1st and 2nd
accused confessed in their voluntary statements that they had
Judgment 13 C.C.No.6406/2016
committed the theft, using the said bike. On 05.09.2015, the
said accused were produced before the Honorable Court and
taken into police custody for further investigation. Later, the
matter was informed to the five accused, Cw-4 and 7, who took
the accused and showed them to the house of Armugam, a
relative of the 1st accused, in Bannerghatta Mantapa village,
where he presented a 15-gram torn gold piece that he had
hidden, and a receipt for the gold deposited in Manipuram
Finance. They were held in the presence of the pancha’s and
accused from 11:00 am to 12:00 noon, and a seizure
panchanama was conducted, Later, on the voluntary
statement of the accused, he visited No. 83/13 Manipuram
branch in Kempanayakanahalli Maheshwari Complex,
Bannerghatta and took the accused and recovered the gold
chain they had deposited from the hands of Chasa-6 and 7.
The gold chain weighing 53.8 grams presented by the hands of
the Manipuram was held from 02-00 to 03-00 in the afternoon
and was recorded. Later, Cw-1 appeared at the police station
and took a statement about the identification of the gold chain
and the accused. He took the statements of Cw-6 and 7. He
released the gold chain as per the court order. Later, the
investigation into the said case was completed, the charges
Judgment 14 C.C.No.6406/2016
against the accused were prima facie proven, and he had
submitted a final report to the esteemed court.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 cross
examined said witness, where in nothing worthwhile eliciated
from his mouth.
11. The Cw.10 Manjunath.S, who is examined as Pw.2
and 1st IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before
the court that, On 10.06.2015 at 09:15 PM, while he was in
charge of the police station, he received the written complaint
given by Cw-1 and submitted the report to the Honorable
Court and the superior officers. Then he handed over the file
of the said case to Cw-11 for further investigation. Later,
during the investigation under Section 399, 402 of our police
station case No. 610/2015, i.e. on 04.09.2015 at 08-45 pm,
when he was on patrol duty in Doddakallasandra under our
police station limits, he received a information from an
informer that some 5-6 persons were parking a two-wheeler on
the Narayananagar double road under our police station limits
and were planning to commit a robbery. At 09-00 pm, he and
his staff along with pancha’s went near Gubbalal Gate and
taken four persons into custody, and one persons was escaped
from there. Later, during the raid, Cw-8 and 9 arrested the 1st
Judgment 15 C.C.No.6406/2016
and 2nd accused in the said case, and Cw-1 had an iron rod in
his possession and Cw-2 had a button knife. Then, from 09-30
to 10-30 at night, a seizure panchanama was conducted at the
spot and the goods were seized in the presence of the
pancha’s. Then, at 10-50 at night, the accused in the said case
No. 610/2015 and the seized goods were produced before the
Station Officer Cw-11 and he had given his statement
regarding the same.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 cross
examined said witness, where in nothing worthwhile eliciated
from his mouth.
12. The Cw.8 Mahadev, police HC, who is examined as
Pw.3, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
04.09.2015 at 08:45 PM, while Cw-10 was on patrol duty in
Doddakallasandra under our police station limits, Cw-10
received information from a informant that some 5-6 men were
planning to rob someone by parking a two-wheeler on the
Narayananagar double road under our police station limits. At
09:00 PM, he, Cw-9, pancha’s Cw-4 and 5 and other staff
memeber went to the said place. Then Cw-1 informed the
police that, he had come and went to the spot where the police
had come at 09-15 and the Cw.1 conducted a raid on the
Judgment 16 C.C.No.6406/2016
accused in the presence of pancha’s and arrested 4 persons,
one of whom had escaped from there. During the raid, he and
Cw-9 had arrested the 1st and 2nd accused in the said case.
Cw-1 had an iron rod in his possession and Cw-2 had a button
knife in his possession. Then from 09-30 pm to 10-30 pm, a
seizure panchanama was conducted at the spot and Cw-10
had seized the goods in the presence of pancha’s and he had
given his statement regarding the same.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 cross
examined said witness, where in nothing worthwhile eliciated
from his mouth.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt,
the accused can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
14. In this case, the Cw.1 to 7 and 9 witnesses this
court issued Summons and Proclamation. even proclamation
duly executed to the said witness, but they never turned up.
Moreover, this case is 10 years old one. Hence, dropped the
above said witnesses. Moreover, the non examination of the
materials witness is fatal to the prosecution case. As such the
case against the accused No.1 certainly would be entitled to
Judgment 17 C.C.No.6406/2016
benefit of the doubt. Regarding this I relied on the following
Judgment held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC 4581
in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that
suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of
proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a
criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the
realm of ”may be true”’ but has to essentially elevate it
to the grade of ”must be true”. In a criminal
prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere
conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal
proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is
entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to
prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be
extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has
to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible
or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone
of reason and common sense. It is also a primary
postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views
are possible on the evidence available one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
15. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, it is
important to note that, the material witness is not secured by
the concerned police, further the police evidences does not
Judgment 18 C.C.No.6406/2016
prove the alleged commission of against the accused No.1 with
corroborative evidence. As such the accused No.1 certainly
would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused
No.1 to prove the prosecution case. Moreover, non examination
of material witness is fatal to the prosecution case. By
considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, with the above observations, I Answer to
the Point No.1 in the Negative.
16. POINT NO.2: In view of the above findings on Points
No.1 , I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
In the excise of powers Confirmed
U/sec,. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.2
is hereby Acquitted for the alleged offence
punishable U/sec,.392 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.2 and
surety extended for further 6 months in
order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.6406/2016
Thereafter, this bail bond automatically
stands cancelled.
The properties seized by the IO in
P.F.No.156/2015, Item No.1, Bajaj Vehicle,
Interim release is made absolute, Item No.2
Iron rod being worthy, is hereby ordered to
auction the same, confiscate to the state,
further Item No.3 Button knife, Item No.4
Wooden Club, Item No.5 Chilly powder arr
being worthless, is hereby directed to
destroy the same, after the appeal period is
over in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and
then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of April-2026)(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. H.Parashuramappa
PW.2 : Sri. Manjunath.S
PW.3 : Sri. Mahadev
Judgment 20 C.C.No.6406/2016
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Request letter
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Statement of Pw.1
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.4 : Mannapuram Finance Bill
Ex.P.5 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.6 : Request letter
Ex.P.7 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8 : FIR
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION: Digitally signed
THIMMAIAH by
G
THIMMAIAH
NIL G Date: 2026.05.02
12:25:52 +0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th Addl.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.6406/2016
Judgment 22 C.C.No.6406/2016
