Karnataka High Court
Cheluvachari @ D Chellappachari vs The State By Saragooru Police on 21 February, 2022
CRL.A.No.632/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.632/2011
BETWEEN:
CHELUVACHARI @ D CHELLAPPACHARI
S/O SRI GOPALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
HALASOORU VILLAGE
H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY SARAGOORU POLICE
H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
31.05.2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN SPL.C.NO.53/2009 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138(1)(a) OF THE ELECTRICITY
ACT, 2003, SECTION 429 IPC AND SECTION 9 READ WITH
SECTION 51 OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.632/2011
2
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'WLP Act'), the accused in Spl.C.No.53/2009 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru has preferred the above appeal.
3. The appellant was prosecuted in Spl.C.No.53/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Act, Section 429 of IPC and Section 51 of WLP Act on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Saragur Police in Crime No.14/2009 of their police station.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The appellant had fenced his land situated within the limits of Halasooru Village with barbed wire fencing to CRL.A.No.632/2011 3 prevent the entry of the elephants into his house. He had a pump house in the said land. He had unauthorizedly tapped electricity from electricity line of pump house to the solar fencing and barbed wire fencing of his land. During the night of 06.02.2009, an elephant came to the land of the appellant searching food, came in connection with the said live fencing wire and died due to electrocution.
5. Regarding the incident, PW.3 Range Forest Officer of Saragur Forest filed the complaint as per Ex.P3 before PW.11 Police Sub-Inspector of Saragur Police Station. On the basis of Ex.P3, PW.11 registered the first information report as per Ex.P22 for the offences punishable under Section 429 of IPC, Section 135 of the Act and Section 51 of WLP Act against the appellant.
6. On the requisition of PW.11, PW.7 Junior Engineer said to have conducted spot inspection and submitted his report as per Ex.P19 to the effect that the electricity was drawn from the pump set to the barbed wire CRL.A.No.632/2011 4 fencing. PW.10 after examining the witnesses, carried out part of the investigation and handed over further investigation to PW.11.
7. PW.11 claims to have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 5 and got the postmortem report of the dead elephant conducted through PW.9 veterinary doctor. During mahazar, he said to have seized MOs.1 to 3 service wire, zinc wire and barbed wire and collected photographs Exs.P4 to P15 and issued requisition to the Electricity Department to submit the report about electricity connection and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet.
8. The appellant denied the substance of accusation and claimed trial. Therefore trial was conducted. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs.1 to 3. The appellant after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not lead any defence evidence. CRL.A.No.632/2011 5
9. The trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned order convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Act and Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 r/w Section 51 of WLP Act and imposed the following sentence:
Sl. Offences Under Fine Default
Sentence
No. Section Amount Sentence
138(1)(a) of the S.I. for 6
1. - 10,000/-
Act months
S.I. for 6
2. 429 of IPC - 10,000/-
months
9 punishable
R.I. for 3 R.I. for 6
3. under Section 51 10,000/-
years months
of WLP Act
10. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the above appeal is filed.
Submissions of Sri M.V.Charati, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing impugned judgment and order:
11. Section 55 of WLP Act bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Act unless a complaint is filed by the person specified in clauses (a) to
(c) of the said provision. Complaint means the complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. which shall be filed before CRL.A.No.632/2011 6 the Magistrate and not before the Police. But the trial Court took cognizance of the offence based on the police report filed by PW.10. PW.10 is not a notified officer. Therefore, the whole trial for the offence under Section 51 of WLP Act was vitiated. Absolutely there was no material to show that the land where the scene of offence situated belongs to the appellant. The Investigating Officer has not collected any material like RTC and particulars of the land like survey numbers. The evidence with regard to tapping of the electricity from the pump house to the fencing wire was not credible. According to the witnesses electrocution took place at the fencing wire, but the elephant died before entering the land. As per prosecution witnesses themselves there was load shedding. Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is also unsustainable. There was contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5, Exs.P1 and P3 regarding time of mahazar. As per Section 151 of the Act only authorized officer shall file the first information report and PW.3 was not such authorized officer. On that ground, the conviction CRL.A.No.632/2011 7 under Section 138(1)(a) of the Act is not sustainable. When the supply of the electricity itself is not proved during the relevant time, conviction under Section 429 of IPC also does not survive.
12. In support of his submissions, he relies on the case of R.Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1175/2010 C/W Crl.A.No.1220/2010 dated 13.07.2018.
Submissions of Sri Shankar H.S., learned HCGP supporting the impugned order:
13. The appellant did not dispute the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the land in question belongs to the appellant. Thereby, the fact that the land in question belongs to the appellant stood proved. The appellant also did not dispute the installation of electricity pump set in the pump house for the purpose of irrigation of the land. The evidence of the witnesses show that there was solar and barbed wire fencing around the land. The prosecution evidence further shows that by tapping the CRL.A.No.632/2011 8 electricity from pump house installation, electricity was drawn to the fence of the land. The evidence of PW.9 and other witnesses show that elephant died due to electrocution. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Act regarding unauthorized use of the electricity. The Government of Karnataka has authorized the Range Forest Officer to file the complaint for the offence under WLP Act. Therefore, the prosecution was sustainable.
14. Having regard to the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is 'Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is sustainable in law?'
15. To sustain the impugned order of conviction and sentence, the prosecution is required to satisfy the following facts:
(i) There was death of the elephant due to electrocution.
(ii) The elephant died in the land of the appellant.CRL.A.No.632/2011 9
(iii) Cause of electrocution was due to illegal tapping of the electricity from the pump set installation by the appellant.
(iv) Taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court for the offences under WLP Act and the Act was according to law.
16. Before considering the questions of fact, it is relevant to consider the legal aspects of the matter. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 (1)(a) of the Act, Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of WLP Act.
17. Section 429 of IPC which deals with mischief by killing or maiming cattle reads as follows:
"429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees.--Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or CRL.A.No.632/2011 10 upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."
18. The word 'mischief' is defined in Section 425 of IPC which reads as follows:
"425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.--It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrong-ful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not."
19. Explanation 1 to Section 425 of IPC shows that the offender need not have intention to cause damage which is in this case by way of death of the elephant. CRL.A.No.632/2011 11
20. Section 138(1)(a) of the Act for which the appellant is convicted reads as follows:
"Section 138. Interference with meters or works of licensee: (1) Whoever, -
(a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects the same from any such electric line; or
(b) ................................................................................
(c) ................................................................................
(d) ................................................................................
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and if it is proved that any means exist for making such connection as is referred to in clause (a) or such re- connection as is referred to in clause (b), or such communication as is referred to in clause (c), for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred to in clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such connection, reconnection, communication, alteration, prevention or improper use, as the case CRL.A.No.632/2011 12 may be, has been knowingly and willfully caused by such consumer."
21. The reading of the above provision shows that there is a presumption with regard to unauthorised connection, if it is shown, that the appellant was in custody and in control of the apparatus, indicator or meter from which electricity was tapped. Then the burden is on the appellant to rebut the presumption of unauthorized connection of the electrical line.
22. Section 51 of the WLP Act makes an act of hunting which is prohibited under Section 9 of WLP Act, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not less than 3 years which may extend up to 7 years.
23. Section 9 of the WLP Act prohibits hunting of any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under Sections 11 and 12 of WLP Act. Sections 11 and 12 of WLP Act deals with the permission for hunting in certain cases and for special purposes. Section 2(16) of WLP Act defines hunting as follows: CRL.A.No.632/2011 13
"2. Definitions-
(16) "hunting", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes,--
(a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so;
(b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so;
(c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles."
24. The above provision goes to show that trapping any wild animal and injuring the same is covered under the definition 'hunting'.
25. In the case on hand, the allegation is that the appellant with an intention to prevent elephants entering his land had fixed solar and barbed wire fencing to the land. It is further alleged that by making a hole into the wall of his pump house, he drew wire tapping electricity CRL.A.No.632/2011 14 provided for pump set. He further connected that to a binding wire. He further connected that to a barbed wire fencing. It is alleged that the elephant which came to his land for grazing came in contact with such live wire and died.
26. As already noted, the prosecution was required to prove that there was death of elephant due to electrocution. The elephant was found dead in the land of the appellant because of electrocution which was due to illegal tapping of electricity from the pump house installation of the appellant. The evidence of all the witnesses with regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances overlap with each other.
27. To prove that the death of elephant was due to electrocution in the land of the appellant, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.9 Veterinary doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the elephant and submitted report as per Ex.P21, the evidence of PW.3 the complainant cum spot mahazar witness, PWs.1 CRL.A.No.632/2011 15 and 5 panchas to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. PW.7 the Junior Engineer of CESC Office who issued report as per Ex.P19, PW.8 the Assistant Engineer of CESC office Sargur and his report Ex.P20 about supply of electricity. PW.11 who registered the first information report and conducted investigation. PW.10 who recorded the statements of witnesses on the directions of PW.11.
28. PW.9 deposed that during the relevant period, he was serving as Assistant Director, Veterinary Hospital, H.D.Kote. He further deposed that on the requisition of the Range Forest Officer, he visited the scene of offence and conducted postmortem on the dead body of the elephant between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 07.02.2009. He further states that on such postmortem he found that the elephant died due to electrocution and in that regard, he issued post mortem report as per Ex.P21.
29. In the cross-examination of PW.9 neither the scene of offence nor the death of the elephant was disputed. It was only suggested that to hold that the death CRL.A.No.632/2011 16 of the elephant was due to electrocution, the Acro Reaction Test should have been conducted which the witness denied. He also denied the suggestion that elephant did not die due to electrocution. He being expert in conducting the postmortem and giving opinion was not disputed. This evidence of PW.9 was corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 the complainant and PWs.1 and 5 spot mahazar witnesses.
30. At the relevant time, PW.3 was the Range Forest Officer of Sargur and the fact that said forest area was coming within his jurisdiction was not disputed. PW.3 deposed that on 07.02.2009 at 12.00 noon, PW.4 forest watcher informed him about the death of elephant. He denied the suggestion that the death of the elephant was not due to electrocution on account of illegal tapping of the electricity from the pump set of the appellant by using barbed wire erected around the land.
31. In that regard, PW.3 filed the complaint as per Ex.P3. He further states that on filing the complaint at CRL.A.No.632/2011 17 3.00 p.m., the police visited the spot and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P1. He further states that during mahazar, the Investigating Officer seized MOs.1 to 3, zinc wire, barbed wire and insulated wires used for fencing. He also states about photographs Exs.P4 to P15 and negatives Ex.P16 saying that they were taken during mahazar. In the cross-examination of PW.3, death of elephant at the scene of offence was not disputed. It was only suggested that death was not due to electrocution which he denied.
32. In the cross-examination also, PW.3 specifically stated that scene of offence was the land of the appellant and he was cultivating that. That was not disputed in cross examination. The appellant himself suggested that on the western side of the appellant's land one Ramesh Naidu land situates which witness admitted. In the cross-examination also, PW.3 specifically stated the dead body of the elephant was found in the land of the appellant. Instead of disputing that, the appellant himself suggested to PW.3 that Nugu river passes at distance of 10 CRL.A.No.632/2011 18 feet from the southern boundary of the land of the appellant. He further states that the distance between pump house of the appellant and the place where the dead body of the elephant was found was 150 feet.
33. PW.1 spot mahazar witness also speaks about he visiting the scene of offence on 07.02.2009 on the requisition of the Investigating Officer. He also speaks of the scene of offence being land of the appellant and watermelon crop in that land. He also deposed that from the pump house installation through white service wire, electricity was tapped and supplied to fencing wire and elephant died due to electrocution. In his cross- examination, only suggestion was that he signed on Ex.P1 in the police station at the behest of the police which was denied by the witness. The appellant himself suggested to PW.1 in the cross-examination that no crop was cultivated in his land. But there was no denial that the land in question belonged to the appellant.
CRL.A.No.632/201119
34. PW.5 other mahazar witness also speaks in tune with PWs.1 and 3 about unauthorized tapping of the electricity from the pump set installation in the land of the appellant and connecting that to the fencing wire erected around the land. He also speaks about attending to the mahazar proceedings Ex.P1 and seizure of MOs.1 to 3 and taking of the photographs Exs.P4 to P15. In the cross- examination of this witness, the scene of offence or death of the elephant was not disputed. It was only suggested that mahazar was not drawn at the scene of offence which he denied. The appellant himself suggested to the witness that their neighbouring land owner Ramesh Naidu has also fenced his land with barbed wire. He suggested that Ex.P1 is written by the writer of the Department. Accused himself suggests to the witness that adjacent to his land, there is main road. The witness denied the suggestion that death of the elephant was not due to electrocution.
35. It is material to note that none of the statements of the witnesses and photographs Exs.P1 to 14 CRL.A.No.632/2011 20 with regard to scene of offence were disputed. The photographs show that the elephant had fallen on the fencing wire and found dead. Even in the cross- examination of PW.11 the Investigating Officer the appellant himself suggests that on the western side of the scene of offence, there is land of one Ramesh Naidu. He himself suggests that he had not taken any electricity unauthorisedly to his land. When Exs.P4 to P15 were not disputed in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, for the first time, to the Investigating Officer it was suggested that Exs.P4 to P15 was not related to the present case which he disputed.
36. Considering the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the trial Court held that the scene of offence was the land of the appellant. Such being the evidence, for the first time before this Court it was argued that the Investigating Officer has not collected the RTC extract in the spot mahazar, there is no mention of survey number of the land, therefore the fact of scene of offence being land of the appellant was not proved. It was contended that CRL.A.No.632/2011 21 irrespective of there being no denial by the appellant, the prosecution was required to prove that the scene of offence was the land of the appellant. The prosecution is required to prove the fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Further to call upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant is required to create reasonable doubt. When there was no denial on the part of the appellant about scene of offence being part of his land, the oral evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5, 9 and 11 and Exs.P1, P19 and Ex.P21 were sufficient to hold that the scene of offence was the land of the appellant.
37. It is settled proposition of law that facts admitted directly or tacitly need not be proved. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses regarding the scene of offence being land of the appellant and existence of irrigation pump set in the land of the appellant and installation of barbed wire fencing around the land was further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer of CESC, Sargur. CRL.A.No.632/2011 22
38. PW.7 who was the Junior Engineer in CESC Office Sargur visited the spot on 07.02.2009 at 2.30 p.m. and inspected the same. He further deposed that the appellant had cultivated watermelon crop and erected barbed wire fencing around the wall. He deposed that the appellant had taken electricity connection to his pump set earlier. He says that using zinc wire, he had unauthorisedly tapped the electricity from the pump set and used to connect that to the fencing wire. He says that MOs.1 to 3 were referred to him and on examining them he gave report as per Ex.P19. In his cross-examination also, there is no denial that the land in question belongs to the appellant. As against that, it was suggested that if there is such unauthorized tapping of the electricity to the fencing wire and if the land is wet, the electricity flows in the land also.
39. PW.8 was examined to speak about supply of the electricity during 06.02.2009 to 07.02.2009. PW.8 is the Assistant Engineer of Sargur CESC. He says that on the CRL.A.No.632/2011 23 requisition of the appellant about supply of electricity to the scene of offence from 06.02.2009 to 07.02.2009, on examining the office records, he issued the report as per Ex.P20. Ex.P20 itself show that on 06.02.2009 from zero hours to 12.00 hours, there was no load shedding supply, from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours, there was III Phase electricity supply, from 18.00 hours to 12.00 hours, one phase electricity supply. He further states that on 07.02.2009 from 00.00 hours to 12.00 hours, there was no load shedding, from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours, there was III phase electricity supply and 18.00 hours to 24.00 hours, one phase electricity was supplied. The exact time of death of elephant is not known. But the elephant died between 06.02.2009 and 07.02.2009. PW.3 came to know about the death of the elephant when PW.4 informed him about the same.
40. An attempt was made to contend that between 00.00 hours to 12.00 hours on 07.02.2009 there was no electricity supply, therefore the case that the elephant died CRL.A.No.632/2011 24 due to electrocution cannot be accepted. The exact time of the death of the elephant is not known. PW.3 came to know about the death of the elephant from PW.4 who informed about death of the elephant in the land of the appellant due to electrocution.
41. To PW.4 it was suggested that on 07.02.2009 when he was on beat in forest plantation, the villagers informed him about the death of elephant in the land of the appellant. He has turned hostile. Therefore the probability of the death of the elephant being electrocution due to supply of electricity between 12.00 hours on 06.02.2009 during midnight of the same date cannot be ruled out. During that period there was electricity supplied in three and one phase. Moreover Exs.P13 to P15 show that the trunk of the elephant was in contact with barbed wire and that was found there only. Therefore the contention that there was absolutely no electricity supplied and the death of the elephant cannot be accepted. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the said contention. CRL.A.No.632/2011 25
42. The evidence discussed above shows that the elephant was found dead in the land of the appellant due to electrocution. As already noticed, to attract Sections 429 and 425 of IPC, the intention on the part of the appellant to kill animals is not required and if he had the knowledge that it is likely to cause death that is sufficient.
43. As per Section 138 of the Act, if it is shown that the appellant was in custody and in control of the apparatus, indicator or meter and that the same was interfered, then the burden is on the appellant to rebut the presumption of unauthorized connection of the electrical line. The prosecution by the above discussed evidence discharged its initial burden that the appellant had made hole in the shed of his pump set, by using barbed wire through that hole, tapped the electricity and connected that to the fencing wire. Except denial, the appellant did not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption. There was not even probable defence for that. Therefore the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the CRL.A.No.632/2011 26 offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC and Section 138(1)(a) of the Act.
44. Regarding the conviction under the WLP Act, it is contended that Section 9 read with Section 51 of WLP Act show that Section 55 of WLP Act bars the Court from taking cognizance of the offences stated therein, except on the complaint of the person specified therein. Section 55(b) of WLP Act which is relevant for this case reads as follows:
"55. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than--
...............................................................................
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government;"
45. Reading of the above provision shows that a person filing the complaint must be either Chief Wild Life Warden or officer authorized/notified by State Government. Neither PW.3 states that he was CRL.A.No.632/2011 27 authorized/notified officer nor the Investigating Officer attempted to collect any material to show that he was authorized/notified officer to file the complaint. Apart from that Section 55 of WLP Act speaks of 'complaint' by the specified/notified officer.
46. Complaint is defined in Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. as follows:
"2(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report."
47. A reading of the above provision shows that complaint means the complaint submitted before the learned Magistrate either in writing or orally. That itself excludes complaint before the police officer. The complaint lies before the learned Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C, not the police complaint.
48. Section 461(k) of Cr.P.C. which deals with irregularities which vitiate proceedings states that if any CRL.A.No.632/2011 28 Magistrate not being empowered in law takes cognizance of offence under clause (c) sub-Section (1) of 190 of Cr.P.C., such proceedings shall be void. This Court in R.Shivakumar's case referred to supra in similar circumstances held that in the absence of complaint by the prescribed officer proceedings for the offences under WLP Act are vitiated.
49. In the light of the above said provision, taking of cognizance of the offence under Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of WLP Act and consequently trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant were vitiated. Therefore the impugned order of the trial Court requires interference only to that extent. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed.
The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of WLP Act is hereby set aside.
CRL.A.No.632/201129
The appellant is acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of WLP Act. Fine amount deposited by the appellant in respect of the aforesaid offence, if any, shall be refunded to him.
Rest of the judgment and order is maintained.
Sd/-
JUDGE pgg/KSR