Bangalore District Court
Ajjaiah vs Abhishek on 2 January, 2024
Digitally signed by
PATIL
PATIL VEERANAGOUDA
VEERANAGOUDA
Date: 2024.01.02
17:27:39 +0530
KABC031060952017
Presented on : 19-10-2017
Registered on : 19-10-2017
Decided on : 02-01-2024
Duration : 6 years, 2 months, 14 days
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Present:
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 02 nd Day of January, 2024
C.C. No.25096/2017
Complainant:
The State by Police Inspector,
Mahalakshmi Layout P.S., Bengaluru.
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
2 C.C.No.25096/2017
Accused: 1. Abhishek s/o Srinivasagowda,30 yrs,
R/at House No.44, 7th cross, 1st main,
Laggere, Bridge, Kempegowda Layout,
Bengaluru.
2. Abhilash s/o Srinivasagowda, 28 yrs,
R/at House No.44, 7th cross, 1st main,
Laggere, Bridge, Kempegowda Layout,
Bengaluru.
3. Praveen Kumar @ Praveen s/o Putte-
gowda, 35 yrs, R/at No.39, 3rd cross,
Chowdeshwari Nagara, Laggere,
Bengaluru.
Native Place: Tubinakere Village,
Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District.
(By Sri P.Ramalinga, Adv. for A1 & A2)
(By Sri N.Nagaraj, Adv. for A3)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C., 1973
1. Sl. No. of the Case 25096/2017
2. The date of commission 12-08-2017
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Ajjayya.P.
4. Name of the accused Abhishek & Ors.
3 C.C.No.25096/2017
5. The offence complained of U/sec.353, 332, 504, 506 r/w
or proved 34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused No.1 to 3 acquitted
8. Date of such order 02-01-2024
J UD GME N T
The Police Inspector of Mahalakshmi Layout P.S.,
Bengaluru has filed the final report against accused No.1
to 3 for the offences punishable U/sec.353, 332, 504 and
506 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 12-08-2017 at
about 5.30 p.m., the accused No.1 and 2 were proceeding
in scooter bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 without
wearing helmet in dangerous manner from Laggere Road
towards J.C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bengaluru. CW1
Ajjayya.P. and CW2 Paramesh.R., being then police
4 C.C.No.25096/2017
constables of Rajajinagar Traffic P.S. were on public duty
on the said road and CW1 had questioned the accused for
not wearing helmet on the said road near Sri Krishna
Bakery and Sweets, Manjushri Complex, Laggere Bridge
Service Road, Bengaluru. At that time, the accused had
abused CW1 and went away. Again they came along with
accused No.3 to the place where CW1 and 2 were carrying
out their duty and accused No.1 had abused CW1 in filthy
words, beaten with hands and put threat. Further accused
No.2 and 3 had beaten CW1 and torn his uniform. When
CW2 intervened and questioned, the accused had beaten
him also with hands, dragged him by holding his uniform
and torn it. Thereby the accused No.1 to 3 obstructed the
duties of CW1 and 2 and had put threat to them saying
that they will be killed, if once again they dares to stop
their vehicle, abused them in filthy words and beaten them
with hands.
5 C.C.No.25096/2017
3. CW1 has lodged first information before the
Mahalakshmi Layout P.S., on the basis of which the F.I.R.
in Crime No.277/2017 was registered. The accused were
arrested and produced before the VII A.C.M.M. Court on
13-08-2017 and they were remanded to judicial custody.
Thereafter the accused No.1 and 2 moved application and
obtained bail from the said court. On 07-09-2017, the
accused No.3 voluntarily appeared before the said court
and obtained bail by moving application. After
investigation, the I.O. has filed final report against accused
No.1 to 3 for the above said offences before the said court.
4. The said court has taken cognizance against accused
No.1 to 3 for the alleged offences. In pursuance of
summons, all of them appeared before the said court.
5. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused
No.1 to 3 in compliance of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. After
6 C.C.No.25096/2017
hearing both the sides, the said court framed charges for
the said offences, read over and explained to them, wherein
they claimed to be tried.
6. Thereafter as per Notification of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru vide No. ADM-1(A) 09/2020 dated
05-06-2020 this case was transferred to this court.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined in all nine witnesses as PW.1 to 9, got marked
sixteen documents as per Ex.P.1 to 16 and the uniform
shirt as MO1. The prosecution has given up CW12 to 16.
Despite taking coercive steps against CW3 to 6, 8 and 10,
the prosecution could not able to secure their presence and
hence the side of prosecution was taken as closed.
8. Thereafter, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., to enable them to explain the
7 C.C.No.25096/2017
incriminating evidence appeared against them in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same
and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
9. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused
the material available on record, the points that arise for
my determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 12-08-
2017 at about 5.30 p.m., near Laggere
Bridge, Kempegowda Layout, Bengaluru,
the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of
their common intention intentionally
insulted PW1 Ajjayya, with intent to
provoke breach of the peace and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.504 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, the
8 C.C.No.25096/2017
accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of their
common intention voluntarily caused hurt
to public servants PW1 and 3, by beating
with hands, to deter them from
discharging their duties and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, the
accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of their
common intention, used criminal force to
deter the public servants PW1 and 3 from
discharging their duties and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place, the
accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of their
common intention criminally intimidated
9 C.C.No.25096/2017
PW1 and 3 and thereby committed the
offence punishable U/Sec.506 r/w 34 of
IPC?
5. What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : In the negative
Point No.4 : In the negative
Point No.5 : As per final order for the following:
R EAS O N S
11. Points No.1 to 4:- In order to avoid repetition of facts
and discussion, I have taken all the points together for
common consideration for the sake of brevity.
12. PW1 Ajjayya.P., being P.C. and first informant has
deposed that he is working in Rajajinagar Traffic P.S. from
10 C.C.No.25096/2017
the year 2016. On 12-08-2017, himself, PW3 Paramesh,
CW12 Basavaraj, PW5 Santosh Murthy and CW4
Manjunath were deputed to Laggere Bridge for controlling
traffic and they were on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m.,
at about 5.30 p.m., accused No.1 and 2 came on two
wheeler bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 without
wearing helmet and moving towards Kurubarahalli from
Laggere. That the said accused were riding the vehicle in a
negligent manner, as such they stopped and inquired
them, for that they replied in a singular language and went
away. Thereafter at about 5.30 p.m., while himself and
PW3 along with other staff were proceeding towards a
bakery to have tea, said accused came along with two
others. The said persons raised objection for inquiring
them, abused in filthy language such as Bolimagane and
talked in singular language and caused hindrance in
discharging their duties. For that they told, as they were
11 C.C.No.25096/2017
not wearing helmet, as such they have inquired them and
at that time, the accused abruptly started assaulting him.
13. PW1 has further deposed that when PW3 intervened,
the accused No.1 and 2 assaulted him with hands and
caused pain over chest, they also pulled and torn the
uniform wore by them. PW1 further deposed that the other
accused instigated to assault and also gave life threat to
them, they came to know that the said persons belonged
to Laggere Village, the accused No.1 and 2 came at first on
the two wheeler and the accused No.3 had joined them,
later they went to K.C.General Hospital and taken
treatment. Thereafter he lodged Ex.P1 first information and
the police came to spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2
and seized the uniform shirt torn by accused as MO1 and
also seized the above stated two wheeler and identified
12 C.C.No.25096/2017
three photographs as per Ex.P3 to 5 and two CDs as Ex.P6
and 7.
14. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that they have
stopped the two wheeler of accused since they were not
wearing helmet and rode the same in high speed. He
admitted that only they have to impose fine but not snatch
away the key. Further he stated that they have not
snatched the key of motor cycle. That there is no
identification to show that he only was wearing said MO1.
There is no name badge on MO1. Since the accused
dragged him on the ground, his shirt had become dirt. The
CCTV was installed at spot, but he has not gave its footage.
He denied the suggestion that when the accused asked for
return of his key, they abused and given threat and also
foisted this false case. He has denied all other suggestions
put to him.
13 C.C.No.25096/2017
15. PW3 Paramesh, the P.C. of Rajajinagar Traffic P.S.
has deposed that on 12-08-2017 at 5.30 p.m., he along
with CW3 to 5 were on duty, at that time the accused
persons came in two wheeler from Kurubarahalli towards
Laggere, PW1 has stopped them and asked as to why they
were not wearing the helmet, for that the accused asked as
to who were they to ask them, parked the vehicle by side,
beaten PW1 and dragged him by holding his uniform and
torn the same. That when he intervened, the accused had
also beaten him, later himself and PW1 had been to
hospital, took treatment, gone to station and PW1 had
lodged first information and identified the photographs at
Ex.P3 to 5, so also the uniform shirt of PW1 at MO1.
16. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that in
every traffic signal, CCTV was installed. He does not know
whether the CCTV footage with respect to incident are
14 C.C.No.25096/2017
given or not. He denied the suggestion that they demanded
money from the accused, when they refused to give money,
they assaulted the accused and have foisted this false case.
He has denied all other suggestions put to him.
17. PW5 Santosh Murthy, the P.C. of Rajajinagar Traffic
P.S. has deposed that on 12-08-2017 near Laggere Bridge,
himself and CW12 & 13 were deputed for work, at about
5.30 p.m., they came to know about the quarrel that was
taking place near Krishna Bakery and when they had been
there PW1 and 3 were present, who told that the two
persons who were not wearing helmet were caught hold
and when they were about to impose fine, they had beaten
and obstructed their duties, meanwhile the accused had
gone from there, thereafter they have taken the injured
PW1 to hospital.
15 C.C.No.25096/2017
18. During cross-examination, PW5 admitted that at the
time of incident there was huge traffic, so also he has not
seen the incident personally. He came to know from PW1
about the incident. He has not put his signature in
hospital. On seeing MO1, he has stated that none of the
buttons are damaged and it is not torn. He has denied all
other suggestions put to him.
19. PW6 Nandakumar, then H.C. of Mahalakshmi Layout
P.S. has deposed that on 13-08-2017 himself along with
CW15 and 16 were deputed for trace of accused, on the
basis of credible information given by informants, they had
been near Laggere Bridge at 7.00 a.m., apprehended
accused No.1 and 2 who were about to leave in two wheeler
bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 and produced
before S.H.O. as per report of CW15.
16 C.C.No.25096/2017
20. During cross-examination, PW6 stated that houses
are situated adjacent to each other where they had caught
hold the accused.
21. PW2 Venkatesh and PW4 Somashekhar being the
eyewitnesses have deposed that they do not know anything
about the incident, they have not seen the accused
assaulting police and obstructing their duties and that
they have not given any statement before police in respect
of incident.
22. Thus the learned Sr.APP treated PW2 and 4 as hostile
and cross-examined. But nothing worth was elicited from
their mouth about the incident. They denied for having
given their statements as per Ex.P8 and 9 respectively.
23. PW7 Dr. Radha.L. has deposed that on 12-08-2017
at 6.30 p.m., PW1 and 3 accompanied by A.S.I.
17 C.C.No.25096/2017
Krishnegowda, had come to K.C.General Hospital where
she was working as C.M.O., on the history of assault by 4
unknown persons, for treatment. On examination of PW1,
there is tenderness over right arm, head & left foot and 0.5
cm small abrasion below the neck, she gave primary
treatment and sent him before expert doctor and in this
regard, she has issued Ex.P10 wound certificate. Further
on examination of PW3, there is tenderness over his right
side of chest, she gave primary treatment and sent him
before expert doctor and in this regard, she has issued
Ex.P11 wound certificate and that if any person was
beaten with hand, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P10 & 11
may be caused.
24. During cross-examination, PW7 admitted that as she
is working since 7 years, she is in acquaintance with the
police. She admitted that if anybody get hit from the door,
18 C.C.No.25096/2017
the injuries mentioned in Ex.P10 & 11 might be caused.
She stated that the surgeon has not given his opinion
about the said injuries till date. She has denied the
suggestions put to her.
25. PW8 H.Narasimhaiah the then A.S.I. of Mahalahshmi
Layout P.S. has deposed that on 12-08-2017 at 8.10 p.m.,
PW1 had come to station and lodged first information as
per Ex.P1, on the basis of which he registered Ex.P12
F.I.R. and handed over the case for further investigation to
PW9.
26. During cross-examination, PW8 stated that he has
not inquired PW1 about the delay in lodging first
information. That the cloth of PW1 had torn when come to
lodge first information, there was no external injury and he
had expressed pain. He has denied all other suggestions
put to him.
19 C.C.No.25096/2017
27. PW9 B.N.Lohith, the I.O. has deposed that on 12-08-
2017 he received the case from PW8, visited the spot and
conducted Ex.P2 mahazar in the place shown by PW1 in
the presence of panchas CW3 & 4, seized MO1 uniform
shirt produced by PW1 and enclosed to PF No.57/2017,
thereafter recorded the statement of PW2, 4 and CW8, 10
and deputed staff for trace of accused. That on 13-08-2017
at 7.30 a.m., the accused No.1 & 2 along with Honda
Activa bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 was
produced by their staff as per report of CW15 at Ex.P13, he
recorded the statement of CW14 to 16, seized the said
vehicle in the presence of CW5, 6 by conducting mahazar
as per Ex.P14 and recorded the voluntary statements of
accused. Thereafter he recorded the statement of PW3, 5
and CW12, 13, sent accused along with remand
application to court, on 17-08-2017 collected the true
copies of station house diary extract and work shift extract
20 C.C.No.25096/2017
regarding the duty of PW1, 3 & CW12 to 14 as per Ex.P15
&16. On 08-09-2017 accused No.3 had appeared to station
by obtaining bail from court, he collected the wound
certificates as per Ex.P10 & 11 and thereafter completed
the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused.
28. During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that the
owner, workers of bakery could be made as panchas. As
there was no blood stain on MO1, he had not sent it to
F.S.L. He has denied all other suggestions put to him.
29. The learned Sr. APP has vehemently argued that PW1
and 3 are government servants, the accused have
committed the alleged offences while the said witnesses
were carrying out public duty. Though the defence counsel
has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but except
denial, nothing worth was elicited from their mouth.
Hence he prayed to convict the accused.
21 C.C.No.25096/2017
30. Per contra, the learned defence counsel has argued
that the witnesses who have supported are of same
department, as such they are interested witnesses. The
independent witnesses PW2 and 4 have not supported the
case. The CCTV footage not produced. MO1 does not bear
any blood stain. Therefore only on the basis of official
witnesses, the accused cannot be held guilty. So he prayed
to acquit the accused.
31. Having heard the arguments from both sides, I have
perused the oral as well as documentary evidence placed
on record. In this case, there is no dispute that PW1 and 3
are public servants and were discharging their duties at
relevant point of time. First of all, PW2 and 4 being the
eyewitnesses have not supported the case. Even though
they were treated hostile and cross-examined by learned
Sr. APP, nothing worth was elicited from their mouth and
22 C.C.No.25096/2017
they denied for having given their statement as per Ex.P8
and 9 respectively. The uncorroborated version of
eyewitnesses PW2 and 4 would definitely weakens the case
of prosecution.
32. In the cross-examination of PW1, he stated that CCTV
was installed in the signal where they were on duty.
Further in the cross-examination of PW3, he has admitted
that in every traffic signal there will be CCTV. But PW1
stated that the CCTV footage not given and the same would
be fatal to the case of prosecution. PW5 Santosh Murthy
appears to be hearsay witness, who has categorically
admitted in his cross-examination that he has not
personally seen the incident and he came to know about
the incident from PW1.
33. It is the case of prosecution that accused had torn the
uniform wore by PW1 and 3 during the incident. PW1 has
23 C.C.No.25096/2017
stated in his evidence that when PW3 intervened, the
accused assaulted him also and torn the uniform wore by
them. But PW3 has not stated anything about tearing of
his uniform. Further in this case, only the uniform shirt of
PW1 has been produced and marked as MO1. So, it creates
serious doubt with regard to the version of PW1.
34. Further despite taking coercive steps against mahazar
witnesses CW3 and 4, the prosecution has failed to secure
their presence. There are contradictions with regard to
particulars of MO1, such as blood stain, removal of
buttons, tearing etc., in the evidence of PW1 and other
official witnesses. In that event the evidence of mahazar
witnesses plays predominant role. Unfortunately the
prosecution has failed to examine the independent
mahazar witnesses. Therefore I am of the firm opinion that
it has totally failed to prove the spot cum seizure mahazar.
24 C.C.No.25096/2017
35. As per Ex.P10 and 11, wound certificates, PW1 and 3
appears to have taken treatment at K.C.General Hospital.
PW1 has deposed about same in his evidence. But in
contradiction to this, PW5 being the P.C. who appears to
have reached the spot immediately after knowing the
incident has categorically deposed in his evidence that the
injured PW1 was taken to hospital. Further during his
cross-examination, he has stated that PW1 was taken to
Sri Sai Kanva Hospital. It is strange to note that PW5 has
not stated anything about PW3. So the same would make
this court to doubt the case of prosecution.
36. Apart from the above, the doctor PW7 has admitted
that if anybody get hit from the door, the injuries
mentioned in Ex.P10 & 11 might be caused and further
stated that the surgeon has not given his opinion about the
injuries till date. The main purpose of producing the
25 C.C.No.25096/2017
medical evidence either oral or written is to show the
opinion of the expert with regard to nature of injury
whether hurt or grievous hurt. But here nature of injury is
not forthcoming either from the wound certificates at
Ex.P10 & 11 or from the oral evidence of doctor PW7. The
I.O. has also not taken any pain to secure the opinion from
the concerned before filing the charge sheet. So the
medical evidence is also become very weak.
37. During his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that
on MO1 there is blood stain. But the I.O. PW9 has stated
during his cross-examination that, as there was no blood
stain on MO1, he has not sent the same to F.S.L. So the
same would make this court to doubt about MO1.
38. Herein PW1, 3 and 5 are of same department and in
their evidence there exists contradictions, discrepancies as
26 C.C.No.25096/2017
stated above. Except official witnesses no other
independent witnesses have supported the case. PW6 being
the Head Constable has deposed about apprehension of
accused and their production before S.H.O. PW8 and 9
have deposed from the point of registration of the case till
filing of charge sheet. In view of non-support by
eyewitnesses PW2 & 4, so also discrepancies as discussed
above in the evidence of PW1, 3 and 5, the evidence of
PW6, 8 and 9 do not looms large.
39. Further the defence counsel has argued that there is
delay of about 4-5 hours in lodging the case and the same
has not been properly explained. In this regard, on perusal
of the material available on record, as per Ex.P1 the alleged
incident has taken place at 5.30 p.m. After the incident,
PW1 and 3 being the injured had been to hospital for
taking treatment. Thereafter they went to Mahalakshmi
27 C.C.No.25096/2017
Layout P.S. and at 9.30 p.m., PW1 has lodged first
information statement.
40. The wound certificate as per Ex.P10 and 11 goes to
show that PW1 and 3 appeared before the doctor at 6.30
p.m. It appears that there is delay of about 4 hours in
lodging the first information. In this regard, during the
cross-examination PW8 stated that he did not inquire
about the delay in lodging first information. The F.I.R. at
Ex.P12 does not bear the reasons in lodging first
information. So also there is no explanation regarding the
delay in lodging first information.
41. On meticulous consideration of the entire evidence
available on record, the prosecution is not successful in
proving its case against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all
reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt has to be given
28 C.C.No.25096/2017
to accused persons. In the result, I answer the above
points in the negative.
42. Point No.5:- For the foregoing discussion and my
findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.332, 353, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, by acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
29 C.C.No.25096/2017
After expiry of appeal period, MO1 be returned to S.H.O., Mahalaxmi Layout Police Station with a direction to hand it over to PW1 and the interim order of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 is made absolute.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by him, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 02nd day of January, 2024) (Patil Veeranagouda S.), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Ajjayya.P. s/o Rajamma.P. PW2 : Venkatesh s/o Janardhan Iyengar PW3 : Paramesh s/o Renukappa PW4 : Somashekhar s/o Jagannatha PW5 : Santosh Murthy s/o Sahebanna PW6 : Nandakumar s/o Govinda PW7 : Dr. Radha.L. w/o Dr. R.Surendra PW8 : H.Narasimhaiah s/o Hanumaiah PW9 : B.N.Lohith s/o Nanjegowda 30 C.C.No.25096/2017 Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution :
Ex.P1 : First Information Statement Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW8 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P3 : Photograph Ex.P4 : Photograph Ex.P5 : Photograph Ex.P6 : C.D. Ex.P7 : C.D. Ex.P8 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P9 : Statement of PW4 Ex.P10 : Wound Certificate Ex.P10(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P10(b) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P11 : Wound Certificate Ex.P11(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P11(b) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P12 : First Information Report Ex.P12(a) : Signature of PW8 Ex.P13 : Report of CW15 Ex.P13(a) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P15 : True Copy of Station House Diary Ex.P15 : Signature of PW9 Ex.P16 : True copy of Work Shift extract Ex.P16(a) : Signature of PW9 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution :
MO1 : Uniform Shirt 31 C.C.No.25096/2017 Witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.32 C.C.No.25096/2017
02-01-2024 A1 to 3 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.332, 353, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, by acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
However, in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
After expiry of appeal period, MO1 be returned to S.H.O., Mahalaxmi Layout Police Station with a direction to hand it over to PW1 and the interim order of two wheeler 33 C.C.No.25096/2017 bearing registration No.KA 02 JA 5276 is made absolute.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.