State Of Karnataka By Lokayuktha Police vs Sri B M Moganna Gowda S/O Late Madegowda on 22 July, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Lokayuktha Police vs Sri B M Moganna Gowda S/O Late Madegowda on 22 July, 2011

Bench: V.Jagannathan

INTHEEmmiCOURToFKAmwu%KAAfsAssAmﬁ§§,

Dated the 22% day-'cf ;.?'c:.1y :>,0;if  A  *
:BEF0Rs§*1_ s___
HOBFBLE MR.JUS'Fi_C-E} : \?';s,AGAN;<§AEjs;g:}1 
CRIMINAL APPEZA:L.._N0. 235s  T2603
ggsge §'%§Lr'nataka,  V_ A A  j  " "
by Lokayuktha Police, Jfvlbxgsgrzijg 1 ' V
"  1 ...AppeHan:

( B}; :S.G.;iRaj€r1;(ifs Advocate, )
A N D : % % [   L        A   s
Sri  "   V.
S/0 Late 1\IIsVsdVeg<;-Was,' Aged about 52 years?
House Nv:);P- 1 ,= 2?f%é?'s}z13;i--n "Road,
21*" Cress'; Jay*sn.3gafa.,__'1xﬂ§fsore.
'L A' b '  .,.Resp0nd€nt

  M.S'.R'aj€n.dra Prasad & Associates, Advocates. )
 "1C'1'i:::~i§1a1Appea1 filed under Section 37'8{1) 8: {3} sf

   1 graying to grant leave: to file: an appsal

 judgments dated 23.632006 passed by the

D1;4s'f§ié:V::V  Sp}. Judges, Chamarajanagarag. in Sp}, Case

 A. 1559. 822084, scquitting the respsndemi/ac<:L1ssd for the
_ _ ,'eﬁéacss 33/ufss *?, §3(1Md} read avﬁfa 12x2: of the
 ?§3,C.§(:t.



F»)

This appeal coming on for heanng 

eeurlz delivered the folleweing :    _-
JUDGMENT' A. "

This Criminal Appeal  

Lokayuktha Police, Myser.e;~V..V_pea1lii;g_ 'Eh the'?

judgment of aequittalppassed Vljy-.tl1e t1~ial'e0u1ft§ in favour
of the respondent   of the offences

punishable under S€ECfiO'Il$ "read with 13(2) of the Preven.l--§Qnl:ﬂey--i§ 988 ('the Act' for short). " 4' h --

2. _fl1e:""pro:§eeution, in short, is that, eomplaiharltv Basavanna approached the re..~:§p0n'dent~aCcusedV in connection with the V' 'eQn:.pe:1safioh ameunt payable ':0 Chinnathayamma, his .Si71'E_§{§$Y;v :l'a_1*e§lspeet of the land measuring 3 acres and 3 gimta{:§ ' S.NG. 396/ l belonging to said Chixtmaihayapmma being acquired by the Government she was €10 be paid Rs.6l52l6/~ iewarda the ___§:':0m;::er2saéi<>::l '§l::e:'e{:)re§ when the ctemplaihaht appm22<7heii ihe E1{1{i'i§E§€:{l whe. a': zihe :"ele'vam ééizae, 235213 .\ 2; s working in the Land Acquisition at Chamarajanagara as First Division ,_h.e demanded Rs.<<1~,5{)O/P from the unwilling to pay the a:11i}un':,_[ jéfze approached the Lekayuktéze. Inépecfor ayifi:Iodg'e;d."'hiea» complaint as per EXEL5 999."

3. The L0kayuhi1';e~- for the entrustment the presence of the 1>anchce-isite:V}I11'2%'§ﬁ?i"*e'héehiéer EXP-2. p,w.4 c0mp1e,i;1:2I21fL;- I§.V\7. 3 shadow witnees, wenﬁto accused on 6.8.1999 and the accused deH:ajfi'd:ed"a;id.4accepted RS4-,5QQ/~ from the cornplaiﬁéinee' . ihereafter gave cheque to At that timec the Lokayuktha pohee V eangght hold of the accused and his hands hizeeied p'oe:i§ve when immersed in the chemical seiutior:

and even the pant packet, 3130 tested positive; Gr:

.Ve<§f::p1et§cn ef the iHV€S§igE1':i0f1, eharge sheet was v'7§S1ibi"{1i§§t':'§ a.g3.:nsﬁ: ihe reepeﬁdeni. "z $7' ,, 1 4 Foilowing the accused pleading learned trial judge I'€:f(ZO1:'d€d the evidence in suppert cf the prosecution cé£ée"3;;>2;..:t .fr_<:§"t;:_ r::'a:b}(i::¢g 2?' documents and 9 i\/1.03.' 'E'he'.facct1sed 5-t3;te1,tieiit'-*.Af3.eVV recorded and the accuVseci"~V..gave." expieihaticn tee question No.55 put_..to Secticn 8:13 of the

5. T he leafhed haippreciating the evidence, infirmities in the pr0S€cutiOBj" noticed were.

of the cemplainant, was not examiried' 'the Land Acquisition Officer and the of-the office of the accused, who were éaied §"""?fé§€11t xiéihen the complainant went and the accused in the effice? were also not iezgetmirzeici' another defect noted by the trial court in the prtieectutien case was that; there was he eviedeence ;§iieLt?ed to Show that the accused was entrusted with the Evserit of ggiziing the cheques; :9 the ismei evmerei ﬁfter §E<T}§'i{":§E'1§ these éefectss iu the p1'eeeeut;i<::§: the i:%;}» we/_="

learned triai judge, therefore, entertained 9. douifrfiii his mind as ta) the prosecution having proxsedf beyond ail reasonable doubt riotwiithstahdmg the recovery <:r_i" ' rnerieyi frcgiiﬂthie peseessien of the accused, the ti'-iai'»eourt,'vézcquiitieci"theL' accused by giving him the her1efit_ef

6. Learned counsei Ready for the appe11ant~L0};:iy1;kthé,°aeeeiiiif;g; jiiidgment of the trial couift'; noticed by the trial e011ri""a.1f*e so as to disbeiieve the prc;sé?cutjicx'I"1'~»i>4\»iCl¢:ei¢;xn»--.éV§};¢'cia'11y when complainant P.W.4 has depeeed ih_e"d'emand and acceptance 0f the bribe. am<3u:nt'bj§ thevaccused and his evidence being %3'upf;Qrted&Vh§}«'the evidence of the shadow W'ifI1E3S$ to the evidence of these two witnesses, iyis pQin_iie.--di out that, even during the cr0es~examinati0n on iiiehiaif of the accused, the testimony of PiWs.3 and 4 fiirther reinforced andi therefore? znereiy because ﬁeerieiie pereene vie? ':)h'if1H3;ihEi}'8,I}"}IT1Ei, sister ef the <:e:r::;3iei%:1,21:2i,, ilhe lend A<':§{:§Si{§{}§"i Gffiicer are ihe 'N. ,. \. ' 6 Manager, were not examined, that Cannot, be agg"r.Qund to disbelieve the testinloxny of P.W's.3 and 4 '2'. Alse referring to the €Xpl&1f1.2_1fiOIi.V accused during the trap nxahayfar the learned C'.0L1f1S€l for the""Qppel1'a:1t~Loli_8§ytéT1l«;li.l12*+;1 ihai:-Q even in the explanatlon the_AAae5:used has not denied the proseeigtioh V C#Sl{j§~':'€};C€pt saying that, when the accused amount and his else remains for the the Court below total}? Vi.x:_1_r:"l1Qe_'l'eppreeiating the evidence from conclusion reached by it is t0t.2;.llyLAper{?e.r1se"and contrary to the evidence on record «ahdl fe.ason1fig"'giV*en is also not sustainable in law. 'appeal be allowed and the respondent be Setting aside the judgment of the trial eeurai Learheﬁ eenier eeunsel Shri lVl.S,Raje:1dra Presad "*€e:* £1/he res;}enéemi--a{:euee«:l also teal»: {hie Ciéilfl; ihm2,1gg'h {he exeéelerzee ef the §}§f{}$€{T'f:,l*{,i€)fl e%i§;::eeeee p2:§§'§ctz:le:"ly Xi???

/ P.W.3 shadow witness, P.W.4 complainant, LC). and contended that the testirnon§§_? 'c,»£' witnesses do not inspire c0nfjdenCe."":as~--.:'_Pj,W.3_ nae".

depoeed in his evidence ihat accompany them and once-.__the Sgid evi<1enjee_v is _'j:aken°. inio consideration, the pr0s:eenti0n'- eetdry Vgthat the cheque was taken Qu.'_ﬁ 33y '*:he-- and was given to Chinnathayarnrna a}$AQ..f..S;}1rS

9. As fé§r aeS"'-theVwe.rV1:~~.Qf th_e accused is Concerned, referring ;i:E1__e ..e1'Qe::lexarn.i11ation of these two witneeses; ii"is._Vé:rgi:'ed~----by -the learned senior counsel that ne'=.eviden'ee"'ie triﬂe-.reVto Show that the accused was entrusjied xf§fit}'1."' the work of giving Cheque to

- ¢C}1inr:é;thayammé;}"" He also referred to the answer given during recording of 313 statement and e<3.nt.endeeij;£hat no work was pending with the accused as the Aaeeused was not Cernpetent to issue eheques in siornpensation eases, The evidence ef these witnesses eéee in<i:<::aJ:e that the Land Aeqnisirien Qffieer was ejsré preseni when {he eernpiaénant wear, fr; {he effiee of ehe accused and n0n--eXamination of the Land Aéeeqjuiesitien Officer is? therefore, a Serious ir1fir1}i1§fi_t§k"'V.V_i;e_ preseeutien ease.

10' The tearned senior e(>unee_t 'futrthefe--.ta:'guet§,"'thét,V merely because the 3.rr10u--e(tt~~._AwasV' :eeey*e::eV£i':;V"'t'r0ti1 the possession of the aee1}SedTV.tt-}1et--.itSe_1f 1514-0:. $1» ground to hold that the proseeti'tte:1 the guilt of the accused. _jSi:_1ce entrusted with the worle acquittal of the Y€SpOI1d€€Il§ «t€t§'vI":aIV.1::¢ViI1't€1"f€I'€HC€. Reliance is plateed reported in AIR 2006 SC to' iaferesaid submissions. The Ieafnyed steniervetaufisefsalse pointed out that the appeal isié[ge:,inset. en efde':""ef acquittal and the irmocenee of the reinforced further on aeeount of the passed by the trial Court.

nil". Htwing thee heard the learned eounsel fer the 'QVh€?;h€i' the appeﬂantt-Lekayuktha has made Feat 3 Case fee this eeuet te interfere Witt} the judgment ta/"' of aequiital passed by the trig} court is the pe-31: fer eeneideretiee.

:2. Befere preeeedirzg 'ie examine the_--e-eni:'e.I:%:i.er:.$ pjxiie.» ferward in the Iighi of the €ViCi:$ﬁC:€. eej:1 :fe€:e :'d; 'ii-3>xze:;2ei;d be useful ':0 Ree? in View ff:he Lax?' deeei A:pe2§:", Court with regard te interfefe;'§ee_ by ti<"2.e'VV'a.1Vjpe1:Eiaee Court against the jez3dgmenj§"ef Court, in the case of Ami; Kumae qf.:v}!}?;%vb»_reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) geeifelneters of law as under:

on the appellate leetizet evidence upon which an oreteeef ie based. Generally, the ' "O3'.d€I'a0f shall not be interfered with i:3'eee:::ee t}ie'j5feeumptier1 ef innocence ef the _ further strengthened by acquittal. ' geieien thread which runs through the wee 'ef edminieiratien of gzzeiice in erziminai " eeisee is $213: if £2350 views are possible er: the " evidenee eddueed in the eeeeg eee peintiizg ie the guilt ef ihe aeeeeeé and the eiher te his §mzeeer:ee§ the View eshieh is fevezzreieie lie {he eeeeeeé ehezﬁé ee edeeieée '§'§2e paramoimii Consideration of the court is ﬁe ensure that miscarriage of prevented. A miscarriage of jL1Sf,iCY€';'"£Vh.i§Z1g1::» '4 may arise fmm acquittal of the gL1i1i3{::isiV'_iiie 'A less than frem the eonVieiii<3'r':»-{if eiiji In a Case where adn1ie=.Sib}_eeveviisiieiiee ig' -Of'E'd, a duty is easy iiiieieiihe court to reappreeiate 'f3f'}éV"€V'id€1"i'C€.W'i'i:€1'é}:'Eh€ accused has be-eii acqLi'ittVed,VV"fQ_1* theipurﬁose of ascertaining"'--:{'s~i 9.113! of the accused gfealiye . A"C~£;I::;]'hi'f:'3i,d Q' 'Offence or

-9

13. It is, aforesaid principles of Iaﬁj laid Apex Court that, where the admissible isiiigﬁored and the finding recorded is _j3erx><erse "in nature or the View taken is an .ii'mjeas5eifia.bi'e __View the evidence on record, the would be juetified in imterfering' with the erdéeif. e"'iTaae@iiii;taL Coming t0 the evidence er: reec:2rc:L RW4 V' Wiﬁasavanna is ihe eeir:p13.ine.iit and he had deposed zibeiiii i/he sinieziiii; iihai. W2'¥.E5 ie be received by his siieier €3iiii':iieiiii;ij;:aii:i:i2i Rs;,§i,2i8,f~i iiiiaii he i':2ia:ii'i;f;' approached the accused. who was 21 clerk: in thje*.Land Aequ:s:tt:i<:sn Office and the accused _,_§¥--'?./Q Commission on the compensation 3I11O1l']7?.:.,."f.5u7l'CV':'~.{:)"I1'_E)€i'}:"1gu told about the inability ta was fixed as the bribe aV:e11.e4:_>'ur1t.'._ 'Af'terV.é§"i;erttf§.g lodging of the Complaint the Vd~:*aj}v'i--i-kg of the entrustment . trae V we/oneerned, P.W.4 has deposed ir} he went to the office of the Mahesh and P.W.3 seeing the Complainant, the has come simply for VE'hiCﬁ'Ihe that he had come prepared and thet1';--«the é.ecAL!vS§e<§:~7asked the Complainant whether the«:. CQﬁi::Iaiﬁ€{Iit....h.c'7iS Come simpiy or with the ame-unt ' ;é::::.d e:i'~beiiig_to1d that the complainant had come with '--t}.:1e'afr1é'_unt;;,V'the accused received the same from the right of the eompiainant; and put the amount into "ft*:;'sn tient pocket. Thereafter, the accused told the eeffzpiainant te {fail his sister whe was waiting eeuteide " zzaéi she azid eiggzzeii and t+:>e»}s: the eheéguet At that time. the i:empi21ine:3t gave sigma}: age: the Le':<2:y:;kthe J/"*s 3;."

g M' M / ///_ V police came and Mahesh took out the n0tes_4vf1":O-f:;i'~..the pocket of the accused and counted them arid 'ti':.-efg»'- found to be the very same notee,AAwhich_.'th'e"

was given during the entrustmeni:_'rzjiahazaii' Ei><§';}?--:-7e_is the entrustment maha2:ar;s:3.ys this \Vév7itr1ee.~3.'S'. E5. in the er0ss»ex5;:ninea"ti0h_:"eVf"eA1?.W.4§""::1dre details have been elicited éCb'<:>u~tWheiﬁiehincideht and the witness has once accused was having about a Week back anci not give the cheque unleese m*;teV'vgiV*en and further, the Witnee-3 r::1'0ss~e;><:amination to a suggestioﬁ' to behalf of the accused that the 'geek theeheque from the beeru (a.hnirah} and ..t_the accused took the signature of the e:}fhp1aeihe;1_:*:f'e sister in the cheque book, The witness has *f;tfﬁhe:' stated that, even befere the police, he had that the accused toe}: the mane}; from his pant h;:>eeke{. aed predueed it' 91' is?' we 4,5':f¢ , ( ' f

16. P.W.3 is the shadow witness and deposed in tune with the evidence sf Efifxsseffir the trap is Concerned, the sh21c§.':i:i%if\x':'«fh§%;ss;«he's.sta':edin his evidence that he went' to loffiee <.jfv_ejhe aiong with the eomp1ai11:1n§*~e;nhd her: the» accused asked the cQ:hpiai;1--3:h::vWhethefihee arhount has been brought and 0h'A:'1Aﬁhe_Vaffirmative, the Complainant gave it 1:0 the accused ai;te';' the same, put it intohis 'pgL::ec".;poc;<¢'~:,V ~ ' 1?'. xThereVaft,e1*',jﬂ5;*as given to the Lokayuktha police who C'a::1e_ éi;i§1'~.-eazxght hold of the hands ef the arﬁézxseei and thev.h,2u'1ds, when immersed in the ehemicai » :se1uiiQ:1,__s01uf:ion turneﬁ into pink colour and even wash was also collected, which also ttfenecli irife pink eelour and EX.P~3 is the mahazar that nwees ecsldueted in respect: sf these events. In the Cross- "~V_Ve;s;:::9ninatien ef P.W§3 aise, the accused has get the __.éehe1e éneicient confirmed ihasieueh as P.Vv',3 has deposeéi even iiueiehg eross~e;:a::1h:a:i{}r: en behalf ef the :5: A,/7"

accused that the accused received the n1oney'.ti'1*e;t.e.éthd then gave the cheque and the cheque wag 3150 by the accused hem the b€€Ft.t_;{>9cIII1i1'Elh). V""T}:eV'W§tneesV"

has confirmed that even before=the'_'_'p<}1iete~_h'e_iha:e:'h_st;§t4€fd that the accused took the mjnouht tirstnisieuingf the cheque.

18. Thus, a close look,hath'thve::VeVttieffigCVe'of P.W's.3 and 4 reveais that we each other in material demand made by the acctgeett of the bribe amount by the aeeus'eAd'tvji7tQ_1f_I;t11e:Lco;r1pI;1ihar1t. The hand wash and the pocketeo " accused has eonﬁrmed the money beihgi,foui'1d in fjosseesion of the accused. When 'qt§e:&et:eVne'd&by during the course of recording of E:><:.P-3, the accused did not come out 'with ahy'VVt§}_}e:usib§e explanation but; on the other hand, his' 17€;I5}.:;?ViI1'1IH€di21t€iy after the trap was that, when he Vhzidjacaught by the police with the bribe amount in the head and the henée etieo having been weeheci there is t}O'ihI:f1§§ etee tee the eieeueed te gate in twititzg and with this explanation, the accused refused to give anything in writing'.

19. Thus, the evidence ef'"' ~P,\V5_'4 corroborated by P.W.3 eha<fE«Qv¢»_'_'T isirit19iesAs--. _ a;r1"d{"«._.Afhe explanations given by the"3_e'e.u.sed"during ' Elx.P~3, a1} go to 1r}dieateV_._EVf1'8..t_'w£§1e .:Lee.u_eeV§jf§ has not denied the prosee{1iieei1_Aease'as the demand made by the accused.9.r{d=acee§3tifig 500/-- from the eomplainanéfg. e§ép_1e.'fié;'iien offered by the accused mahazar Ex.P-3 itself indicates 7the. "a.e_eueed has not denied the proseeuticm '¢--'v€I."i'~A:i."'<3.I_?Kt»"~€iS»,'[§1ElC€Cj1 before the trial court threugh V_:teeti'men§?""ef P.W.4 complainant and P.W.3 s1*;ea,EieWWi:ness,VV' """

H the defects noticed by the trial court, no de:}{:)fc;".AV Chinnathayamma was met examined and "1ii<e}x;ie'e, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Manager ef éhe effiee ef the aecéused were alee met, examined, ' ""E\?e:2~exam§::a{i{m ef ihese E%/"ﬁf1€--'SS€iSg in re}; view; :3 Res:

fzriizeii te éézeé ;3:*esec:u'5:§e;2 ease ealzzee ;3r:::::+;eee_E;§e::

It) brought home the guilt of the accused thi'oug»;'h the test/imorxy of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the very offered by the accused himseif, No submitted by the learned couiisei fcr«_t.he the 9 prosecution could have GxaﬁlillédC;hi.11f1ati18.yEi.InIi;:é;.. the Land Acquisition Qfficer, iVI€tI1ET*,g'V€'i7.., saiti' lapse on the part ofthe pros'ecu;t'i0rieA:;anr1ot"be"blown out of proportion so as Ito "reject, 'convincing and .4 trustworthy ,testi-rnoiiiy do ahd

21. In 'regard to the ciefects in the pros_eciit'i.or;__vc<ase.;_:it..._WoL:1d be proper to refer to the law iaith Court in the case of Dhanqj Sirtgft 'VS-tote '1of'VPu.ry'ab, reported in 2004 SCC1 {Cri) Tithe said case, the Apex Court has heici that, . m_e1fe"~vI'a;:§se.sv.--"in the investigation itself cannot be a groun_j:'tt~o«*""rejeet the prosecution case unless the defects AA go to't.he root of the matter. T he Ape}: Court went or: to i' *c.b_ser've in the said ease that, an accused cannot be _faequ'%tted sotety or: the ground of the ciefect it: the ir122'estig§a.tior: and went on to o§3ser<;e that, ever: ttiouggh in the case before it' many persons? who coutrihave thrown light on the incident, had not been for that matter, the weapons were xieit VAs.ei:t"

exatninatien, these defects weuid .0t11y."puVt' eC~u_t*t 'Gnu guard and the Court will haxfe tiie ZetfeunraegéneettVii:

evaluating the evidence. V 'I'herefoAr"e,V it _was by the ' Apex Court that the.det'eete-- the investigation pales inte insignifieanee tt}I"1er:- 13 found Credible and eegent. -- if

22. In \§i.ew':_ef peeitton in law with regard to the defects _«i1;t t1'1:e'~.§1'oseetttior1 C8186, in the instant case, theetiietetiCe:x"ef~"P.Ws.3 and 4 had not been seriouslyéqueetione-d iii the eresswexamination and the tvzd' witnesses fatty" corroborate each other in material v"aSpeetS ta4f1c:tVthe explanatien given by the accused also agiding. ti; the of the evidence of these two witneeees, the iearned trial judge was met justified in wgitttftg undtze importance to the nerrexartzination ef Eeertain pereene. In fact; it eat: be eatﬁ that the 303» e2<;a:*:":iz":at'.aier: est" eeme ef the pe:"se:'3e been made a big £9' :

issue and in the process, the trial court lost sighe:_4jef_Vthe evidence of P.VVs.3 and 4.

23. For the above reasons, the j'u€%g{mt§':it_ 1gxf §g:ciVi1i.i:;*:.a§i' .z;::fV ' the triai court suffers froiri the ifi.fiZf'1;I1i'[KiCS§..5.R?;i1§(:ji'~.,}ié¥'i%€ been stated by the Apex (°:'m'u:i in eaiseV:i9é:fik:i?re(i.5tehbjg:' me at the beginning scope of interference by the ve;p.£je11ea_§e the Orders of acquittal. As Su_eh, passed by the triage * ﬂsiistained in law.

ConsegiienV§1§aV:"A;_: his convicted for the 0fferiees__ Qjéeetions 7, 13(1){d} read with 13(2) oiﬂthfi P.<:jA}5:j:.

W: i Y'! A 1 3? 7/1 'I + F. . Ck "' nut AK/t:'LrLL€\.,£ COU.ﬂS€i 18} uiﬁ 9{}'§€Laﬂu W3 ,.{I..>.

' , 7.2"

9:

(V (D ' __Shri Rajendra Reddy and also learned H Shri M.S.Rajendra Prasad for the re4sp0fide:"iti~aeeuseC§ en the question Qf sentence, The learned eeimsei for the respomdentaecused ,§SL§bH}§'{"f€d thee: airrzesé: £2 years hazze eispseé simte the i§1(':§§€E"ii iigriheix Ehe :"espe:i:s:ie:":é: is HOE? .21 €:€§3}lGE" 19

Citizen and has retired from service aI1_d:."Ehﬁ-3T_€ff{:»:fé',_ lenient View may be taken. On the other,Iji'a{;C§V;:'ie<a1*f1e:1V' eauneel for the appellantL0kféi$e1i:ti1e;"._st11::if§ft§e§I"V"t;1f1é:t the minin1urn sentence is {me yea1f i;:: reSpe.ct"0f" s:?:c+:mv.e 13(2) of the PC. Act ar1ei;e'e».V}t£;eref0fe,_ the eeurt may consider imposing fegérd to the punishment prescribed' : 'L:xffezr_1g:es punishable under Secti{:1?:§,.;?f'.an£i of

26. .',e!f0:§ésaid submissions, the following 01rx:iLe:::V is 'passed:__ -- ' The the Lokayuktha, Mysore, is a1}Q.'2::--eC_i. of acquittal passed by the trial A<:C)"uft3is setéasidev.' """ H " "1f1:fie:v"wﬂe£=pondent is convicted for the offences epg;1»1:sha;;e:e;:nde1~ Sections 7, 13(1)[<:i) read with 13(2) of the P. .:":c.f;;

" respect of the conviction under Sectien 7 of the P_.C';_«:'§cte, the respondent ifs Seniemted E0 undergo six §ﬁ€}I1§hS irzzprisenmeizt azzd shalt} szlse gay fine ef 20 Rs.5.00{)/- and in default of payment of undergo ihrther SE. far two monies.

As far as conviction u11ci,er £_'.3ec3tiQ*:1 '1S{1)'{¥fi-}.___ r"<:'..f<1d with 13(2) of the P.C.Ar:t i$e'e_Qncef':_1ve'dg the=f+;sf§ene§'erit sentenced to undergo 8.1. peritjég. year and shail alse pay fi:1e:_'(>f Vﬂsvziefault of payment of fine, to two menths.

T he serxieggjltées Sconeurrently and the as per Section 428 of the ét4:';r 0V{11:1t"'is'--fecovered, half of it shall be tie sis Compensation.

surrender before the trial ceziﬁ W*§thiﬁ"eig:hj}_jyr3eks but met later than 21.9.20} 1 to also take necessary steps to ensure that the re.sp(gfident undergees the sentences imposed upon V' trim, {::};a: 5 ~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court