Karnataka High Court
Vithal S/O Yamanappa Bhavikatti vs The State Of Karnataka (Lokayukta ... on 12 October, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3564/2011
BETWEEN:
VITHAL S/O YAMANAPPA BHAVIKATTI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SDA IN KHB
OFFICE, R/O. KARABANTANAL
TQ: B.BAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (LOKAYUKTA
POLICE) R/BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CIRCUIT BENCH
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.S.KUMMAN, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 08.03.2011 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL
2
JUDGE, BIJAPUR IN SPECIAL CASE (LOK) NO.14/2009
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in Special Case (LOK) No.14/2009 dated 08.03.2011 by the learned Special Judge at Bijapur.
2. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, IDSI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, IDSI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
3. The complainant - Riyazhmad Ganihar is said to be working as a supervisor, gave an application for allotment of a plot in the office of Karnataka Housing Board, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'KHB' for short) along with demand draft for Rs.20,550/- and a challan of Rs.100/- and later, he met the accused/appellant who is working as SDA in the said office told him to come after 15 to 20 days and approached him but demanded Rs.10,000/- for getting the allotment in his name. But the complainant was not in a position to pay.
4. Thereafter, on 05.08.2008, the complainant approached Lokayukta Police and they gave him a micro cassette recorder and told the 4 complainant to record the conversation of the accused in regard to sanction of plot in his name. The complainant carried the device to the office of the accused and came back to the Lokayukta Police. The Lokayukta Police perused the cassette and were confirmed on demand of bribe and registered a criminal case in Cr.No.10/2008 for the said offence.
5. Thereafter, the Police Inspector requisitioned for officials from Panchayatraj office, Vijayapur and Fisheries Department, Vijayapur where two officials, and procured by name Raghavendra Kabade and Ashok Balappa Hugar. The police conducted entrustment mahazar and during the mahazar, complainant and witnesses introduced to each other and technical and scientific aspects were explained to them by the Lokayukta Police.
5
6. The complainant was asked to produce the currency notes and the complainant being informed that the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- shall be paid only in case of demand for it by the accused and one witness out of them was informed to cooperate as shadow witness wherein he was instructed to follow company of complainant to report what happened about the incident. Thus, the proceedings were conducted wherein the complainant was asked to show the amount of Rs.6,000/- which is claimed to be illegal gratification demanded by the accused. The amount was asked to be counted and they were Rs.6,000/- in denomination of 12 notes Rs.500/-. Thereafter the I.O. asked the constable to get phenolphthalein powder and the witnesses in the complaint were made to know about the serial number of the currency notes after counting. 6 Thereafter the formalities of smearing phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and verifying it was made. Further two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 were asked to check his pocket to ensure that there is no amount in the pocket and suitable instructions were passed on to the complainant and PW.2 of their duties with dues and bounds. The instructions were given to the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the accused only in case of demand. PW.2 who is also called as shadow witness was asked to observe what happens and report thereafter. The proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of entrustment mahazar in the presence of complainant and the witnesses in the office of Lokayukta Police on 08.08.2008.
7. The said document is marked as Ex.P.21. After smearing phenolphthalein powder on the 7 currency notes and the witnesses coming into contact of the tainted currency notes dipping the said hands in sodium carbonate solution and change of colour of sodium carbonate solution to a pink colour solution was mentioned in the mahazar and finally after the proceedings the witness was asked to wash his hands and thereafter team proceeded towards the office of the accused and at a place nearby the Karnataka Housing Board the vehicle was stopped, complainant and PW.2 were asked to get down of the vehicle and instructed to go inside the office and ensure that the amount has to be paid to the accused only in case of demand for it by the latter (accused) and PW.2 was asked to follow him to observe the activities that happen therein. The raiding party was consisting of PW.4, I.O., Police officials, panch witnesses and the complainant. The complainant was instructed to 8 wipe his face with kerchief in case the accused demanded and received the bribe. Accordingly, the complainant came outside after some time and wiped the face to signal or pass on the communication that the accused No.1 demanded and received the bribe of Rs.6,000/-. Immediately, the team lead by I.O. went inside the office and the complainant showed the accused and said he is the person who has received the bribe and asked the complainant and got the information. The complainant told that the accused questioned why was delay and asked whether he has brought money of Rs.6,000/- and received from the complainant and kept it in the left side pant pocket. Then PW.2 also was asked to explain and he reiterated the version what was told by the complainant. The Investigating Officer conducts mahazar with necessary formalities and thereby he 9 asked his staff to prepare sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his fingers. When his right hand was washed there was no change of any colour whereas on left hand being washed it turns to light pink colour. Both the solutions were put into bottles and seized which is marked as M.O.8 and then the accused was asked to produce money of Rs.6,000/-, he took out it from his pant and produced it. The mahazar witness said to have verified it as to whether they tally with the currency notes, which are included in the subject matter of entrustment mahazar.
8. The other formalities which is spoken in the evidence is that after providing another pant, the accused was asked to remove the pant which he was wearing and thereafter left side pant pocket was washed in sodium carbonate solution that turned 10 into pink colour. Thereafter complainant was also asked to produce tape recorder and all the ordinary solution and pink solution were seized and the accused was asked to submit his explanation and the accused gave his written explanation as per Ex.P.9. All the narrations of the complaint were endorsed by PW.2. The mahazar drawn in the office of the accused regarding the proceedings stated above is exhibited as Ex.P.18. Thereafter, conducted investigation of the incident, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) R/W Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. The matter was heard by the learned Special Judge as constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, who found that there were 11 sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) R/W Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 including the complainant, shadow witness, co-panch (second witness), Asst. Engineer, PWD, I.O. and documents Ex.P.1 to P.23 including the complaint, five photos, entrustment mahazar, trap mahazar, FIR, sanction order, CE report were exhibited and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked.
11. The accused relied on the portion of the statement given by the complainant as Ex.D.1 and another portion as Ex.D.2.
12
12. The learned Special Judge after having found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) R/W Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each of the offence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offence, IDSI for one month each.
13. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish a case that the accused in order to carryout his duty demanded bribe from complainant and after having demanded received it and caught red handed, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) R/W Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13
14. In this connection it is necessary to mention that the complainant for the reasons best known to his wisdom turns hostile and gives version which is totally against the prosecution. He was also declared as hostile and Spl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him.
15. The prosecution version is the complainant initiated the proceedings by complaining against the accused for having committed the offence, but incidentally in his evidence dated 28.6.2010 states that he had brought one more friend with him and also does say against accused in respect of demand and receipt of bribe or spoken against the accused. According to him, the accused asked him to come after 15 or 20 days by telling him the date of distribution of plots was not decided. According to the complainant, in 14 his oral evidence it was his friend who guided the complainant regarding going to Lokayukta office, paying the amount and other procedure and finally he ends up the version in his chief examination to the effect that the accused neither demanded nor received any bribe from him.
16. In his cross-examination he admits that two witnesses were secured by the Lokayukta to their office and however he selective for certain questions for accepting it. He further states about the proceedings that took place regarding noting down the currency number, conducting test with the help of phenolphthalein powder and the solution turning to pink colour and seizing them etc. But it is that the contents of mahazar were read over and explained to him. Incidentally insofar as based on entrustment mahazar period, all of them I.O. Police 15 complainant the witnesses went towards Solapur road where Housing Board Office is situated. Further the complainant denies every circumstances whether incriminating or otherwise against the Investigating Officer regarding steps to be followed.
17. Insofar as the matters regarding demand, payment and receipt of bribe amount, accounting other aspects relating accepting bribe all are denied. Incidentally admits that washing of the hands of the accused to the effect that right hand wash of the accused never changed its colour, left hand wash turned to pink colour. Further he also specifically admits that the accused was asked to take out the amount and verifying it with reference to the number that were noted down during entrustment mahazar and thereafter by providing alternative 16 pant, he was asked to remove the pant and left side pant pocket was washed. All the said articles were seized. Thus, the complainant in the selective phrases denies the prosecution version and admits certain occasions including the proceedings conducted in the Lokayukta Police. As was declared hostile he was cross-examined wherein he admits photographs. During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he would nod his head in affirmative and also answers the suggestions and the suggestions that complainant met the accused in the corridor and the complainant offered him bribe, he said that he is not in the habit of receiving bribe and the complainant forced him to take, then also he did not receive. The Lokayukta Police Inspector who was standing at a corner signaled the complainant 17 to keep the money in the left side pocket of his pant, thrusted it.
18. The shadow witness concerned, he has mentioned about the proceedings and he deposed regarding the accused demanding money from the complainant regarding the work and the complainant giving the tainted currency notes. Thereafter the accused came back and sat on his chair. The complainant signaled the Police and tells about the proceedings and deposes about not changing of colour for the right hand wash and the change in the left hand wash.
19. PW.4 - Ashok Balappa Hugar partly turned hostile. He is witness to the mahazar and other witness viz., PW.5 for having prepared the sketch, PW.6 for supplying the papers to evidence, the pendency of work with accused and other 18 witnesses including the I.O. they speak regarding the formalities conducted during investigation and also for having scientific examination of the articles.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar would submit that the complainant has given a go-bye to the prosecution version. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence and has failed at the threshold itself. Further he would also submit that there was no official work pending before the accused to believe that he demanded money regarding allotment of plot from the complainant. he would further submit that the story of the prosecution is totally occupied by exaggeration and glorification. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sanction obtained for prosecuting the accused was not proper and it is invalid, as the 19 witness PW.5 is not a competent authority. He would submit that the PW.5 the Commissioner KHB is not a competent person for according sanction. However, no objections were raised at the earliest stage nor produced any document in support of the contention. However, decisions regarding administration was taken up by the Board and implemented through Commissioner. The learned counsel would submit that there is no discussion, thus it does not stand the test of justice and for play. The learned counsel would focus that the order never finds valid points nor has given a detailed order, but mechanically sanctions order is signed and therefore Ex.P.20 which is a defective order is as good as not the order.
21. The learned Public Prosecutor defends the genuineness and validity of the order. 20
22. Having gone through the order issued by the PW.5 Commissioner. The consideration also has to be focused on the materials placed while seeking sanction to prosecute and not the quantum of the order. The sanction not issued after conducting enquiry. But on perusing the record and the material. Thus, I do not find the defect, irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the sanction order issued by PW.5.
23. Insofar as concept of demand is concerned, it is necessary to mention Section 7 that provides for circumstances wherein the complainant is pushed to a place wherein the complainant never can have alternative other than praying bribe. Thus actions gestures and the conduct of the accused with reference to context. The reliance is not on the proforma phases of demanding bribe in a clear and 21 unequivocal words. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the electronic device were said to have been used for recording the conversation and they were considered by the learned trial Judge in the same form as no scientific examination was applied on it. This Court is not on the result of devices, the said considering the materials available on record, oral evidence, material objects etc.
24. It is also necessary to know that to identify an offence under P.C. Act the provisions of the Act, it does not prescribe particular first witness, panch No.1 or shadow witness or sodium carbonate solution, this chemical test that has been followed right from the test of Anti Corruption Laws which prevails in the beginning of 19th century and erstwhile provisions of Sections 161 to 165 of IPC. Thus, it is all lies in the substance. 22
25. It is another ground urged by the learned counsel there was no work pending with the accused.
26. The learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in 2010 (3) KCCR 1851 State of Karnataka Vs. M.Gopalakrishnaiah and others, 2015 (9) SCALE724 and (2015) ACR 197 SC C.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala.
27. It is to be mentioned therein when the amount is not demanded by the public servant as a bribe there is no offence on his part and if it is attempted to be given by the complainant to lure the public servant and if he endeavours to inject the blood of corruption into system, the complainant becomes accused under Section 8 of the P.C. Act and the demand need not be vocal or in writing, it is the circumstance. However, great vigil has to be 23 exercised by the investigating agency and the court. At the end, only phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution cannot hold the veto power to undo the done and do the undone. In this connection the gesture of the accused, place, mahazar etc., and the explanation given by the accused is also important, as a public servant is presumed to be a literate and the explanation is given in writing. More particularly, the indoor administration, the control or access of the corrupt public servant to the file that matters and not only the seal and the signature of the tainted bureaucrat.
28. In this case, explanation of the accused is not denied by him, he is the SDA of Government organization and it is written in his own handwriting. Pendency of the work has to be taken 24 into consideration. The complainant or even a highly qualified person cannot make out what transpires in the office to get the work done.
29. There is no denial that accused is a public servant and he was working in Karnataka Housing Board office at Bijapur. Insofar as demand and receipt of bribe amount the complainant turns hostile.
30. The complainant in a highly cautious denies the suggestion by the learned public prosecutor, who cross examined him in the proceedings whichever initiated by the complainant, who filed the report against the accused and the proceedings required a batch of officers from the cadre of Police Inspector upto Police Constable. Further in respect of hostility a hostile is one who goes against the circumstance which the court finds 25 as truth on completion of a full pledged trial. Thus every suggestions or circumstances, he would process them in such a manner, as if discharging an obligation for safeguarding the interest of the accused. In umpteen numbers of cases hostility of complainant does not alter the out come.
31. The concept of hostility neither helps the prosecution nor the complainant. Oral evidence means a consolidated reading of the chief examination and the cross-examination. The hostility is always referred with reference to assailing from the version from a particular promise that promises is a truth when the person assails from the truth it is that circumstance which is called as hostile, not that a person go against the statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. or is passed etomonished. When the court finds what 26 exactly the truth and when the version of the witness is against whole or part of such witness, the witness is called as hostile to the respective proportion. Further in a complaint other than certain compoundable offence, the vetoing power cannot be claimed by the complainant just because of the reason he is complainant. His duty ends the moment he has complains and he can never dreamt of withdrawing the complaint wherein the prosecuting agency will be stayed, but not the complainant nor he can claim any representative capacity for prosecution. As a matter of fact even the currency seized in an offence punishable under P.C. Act will be maintained in the office of the Lokayukta and the complainant will be given back the same value on such a case.
27
32. The proceedings are not conducted under the mercy of complainant. Moreover the role of the complainant appears to be very interested. The first document that came to be appeared in the case is the complaint. Initially he lodges the complaint in respect of the work regarding allotment of plot in the colony built by KHB at Bijapur, but for the reasons best known to the complainant, he selects certain questions for yes and certain questions for no and certain questions volunteers and certain stands literally he made to give a clean chit to the accused despite the complaint filed by him. In the beginning, he goes to the extent that his friend was behind the activities and wants to blame his friend as his friend took him to Lokayuktha police and he says without paying bribe work cannot be succeed. Thus for a circumstance, to lean in his favour complainant like the one in the case, can go to any 28 extent. Thus, admission, denial and estoppel are of no value.
33. Insofar as incriminating or overt-acts, the complainant passes the buck to his friend. Even the amount of Rs.6,000/- was asked by his friend to be brought and accused did not tell him anything. Next day he went to meet the accused along with his friend and told to him that the plot has not been allotted, accused told allotment has not yet been commenced and it was his friend that he is telling like that only for money, then his friend took him to Lokayuktha police station, he brought money at the instance of his friend and by the time he could go to Lokayuktha Police Station with money he found that the complaint is over and he signed it. 29
34. The complainant is not an illiterate nor he has affixed his left thumb mark. He is an Engineer and he says that straightway going to the Lokayuktha office, he signs and says he has not filed complaint to Lokayuktha Police and next day he went to Lokayuktha police station and gave tape- recorder and he did not switch on the tape recorder.
35. Thus the person, from whose custody the Lokayuktha police have seized the tape-recorder, he says it was never recorded. However, as found by me already that this court does not place reliance on the tape-recorder evidence. He affirms of securing witness CW2 - Raghavendra Khadke and CW3 - Ashok Hugar. Insofar as seizure of the articles including the solution and currency notes are not contradictory. In so far as the currency notes is concerned, there is no dispute one that was 30 subjected to the mahazar Ex.P.18 and also was previously subjected to entrustment mahazar Ex.P.7.
36. Other important aspects that is to be considered are, the document as reflected from the records in the complaint Ex.P1, it is seen that the complainant had gone to accused on a previous occasions and the accused has demanded Rs.6,000/- on 06.08.2008 and as per the demand he arranged on 07.08.2008 and went to Lokayuktha office on 08.08.2008 for which he enclosed his friend as the person who caused it.
37. The complainant in this case has subjected to one chief examination and two cross- examinations. According to him, when he met the accused in his office on 08.08.2008, at about 12.00 noon and asked the accused to do his work quickly, 31 the accused told that he would not take money, and came to the passage and in the passage PW.1 compelled him to receive money and he did not receive the same. As per the explanation given by the accused, marked as Ex.P1 wherein the accused has stated that he was standing in the passage and complainant came and asked him about his work and he said that he would not receive any gratification.
38. Thus, the submission of the accused is not disputed even while examining under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
39. The accused specifically stated that his defence is Ex.P9 and as such the contents of Ex.P9 are admitted in principle by the accused. Further, the complainant for this version gives peculiar version. According to him, there was no demand 32 and there was no voluntary acceptance of bribe by the accused. On other hand, he came and reminded the matter to the accused and the accused said that the notification for the said work is not yet done.
40. No doubt the complainant joins the hand with the accused. But, the complainant states that he was not interested to pay bribe and subsequently filed a complaint. The spirited beginning of the complainant did not last long.
41. Added to it, the complainant has taken a demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,550/-. Out of that, a sum of Rs.550/- for registration fee and remaining amount is for initially deposit. Thus, the complainant could have been approached the KHBB for the first time, incidentally demand draft has been taken on 05.08.2008 and application being filed on the same date.
33
42. The accused while giving his explanation for question No.11 of the statement recorded under 313 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that there were 240 sites to be auctioned and when the application of the complainant was at Sl.No.4, it could have been rejected and this aspect is known to the accused and other officials.
43. Moreover, the complainant seeks details about allotment of sites and the accused is not in the allotment sector. Thus, unawareness of the complainant or the aggrieved person is nothing but means to achieve the end.
44. The application for allotment of site was filed by the complainant on 05.08.2008 and there are many notifications being issued in local newspapers wherein every details are mentioned. 34
45. There is no occasion to disbelieve the version of the complainant till part of the trap mahazar was conducted.
46. Insofar as money is concerned, it has undergone formalities of smearing phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and verifying the same and the numbers are not disputed.
47. The modus of taking bribe amount as stated by the complainant and accused are different. Regarding demand and payment of bribe, the complainant stated that he has brought one more friend with him and does attribute any demand or related version touching demand of bribe or spoken against the accused.
48. In the context and circumstances, both the complainant and accused have gone on record 35 by suppressing the fact and the accused has made a serious attempt through his wrong method to escape the liability under P.C. Act 1988. It is to be seen that the person who stays on lies and stays faraway from the truth.
49. The photographs of entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar is concerned, they go in hand to the version of the prosecution. Further, undisputed Ex.P9 states about the conduct of the accused and the way in which the trap was conducted.
50. At the same time, the matter regarding the proof is that the accused no doubt admits that the amount is in his pant pocket thus, the presence of money in his pocket is admitted and his defence that he has not received any bribe cannot be believed and hence not believed.
36
51. It is necessary to mention about Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at this stage, which reads as under:
"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved than an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under 37 clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to given or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either or the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference or corruption may fairly be drawn."38
52. Where the possession of money is not disputed but the explanation offered by the accused in Ex.P9 or during the trial or but he resorts to false explanation. Even during the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he refers on the version as per Ex.P9. According to the complainant, it was all his friend who guided him regarding going to Lokayukta office, paying the amount and other procedure and finally he ends up the version in his chief examination that the accused neither demanded nor received any bribe from him.
53. In his cross-examination, he admits that two witnesses were secured by the Lokayukta to their office and however his pattern of answering is selective for certain questions for accepting it.
54. In the facts and circumstances, the complainant and accused have made a false 39 explanation only for the purpose to escape from the legal punishment for the offences, which they had already committed. Thus, on going through the oral evidence, circumstances and stand of the accused make it clear that having demanded the bribe earlier continues on 08.08.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. in KHH office the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and shadow of doubt that the accused received bribe of Rs.6,000/- and has started new theory of false defence.
55 Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no irregularity or infirmity 40 to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge at Bijapur on 08.03.2011. Thus, I confirm the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is guilty of the offences as alleged against him.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court with a direction to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and issue necessary warrant. The bail bonds and surety bonds if any executed by the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt/NSP