Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sharanamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1 Crl.A.No.200092/2018
C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200092 OF 2018 (374)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200097 OF 2018 (374)
IN CRL.A.NO.200092/2018:
BETWEEN
SHARNAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA DORE,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O YADRAMI, TQ.JEWARGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585325.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ISHWARAJ S. CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADRAMI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE
TRIAL COURT AND PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
2 Crl.A.No.200092/2018
C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE INCLUDING FINE
PASSED IN SPL.CASE POCSO NO.5/2016 BY II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI DATED 28-6-2018 AND ACQUIT
THE APPELLANT FOR CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 366, 368 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 12 OF POCSO ACT.
IN CRL.A.NO.200097/2018:
BETWEEN
SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA DORE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KADAMGERI, NOW AT BEHIND
LAXMI TEMPLE, JEWARGI,
TQ. JEWARGI,
DIST. KALABRUAGI-585105.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADRAMI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-02
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO,
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28-06-2018 PASSED IN SPL. CASE
(POCSO) NO.05/2016, BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT KALABURAGI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 OF THE
CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.02.2024, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3 Crl.A.No.200092/2018
C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
JUDGEMENT
These two appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.5/2016 dated 28.06.2018, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 368 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:
That accused No.1 Sharanappa since six months from the date of incident, used to follow C.W.2/victim minor girl and proposed to her despite her refusal. It is alleged that on 4 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 12.11.2015 at about 05-15 p.m. when C.W.2 had been to the shop of C.W.8 Sharanayya in Yadrami village in order to get fair and lovely face cream accused No.1 kidnapped her with an intention that she may be compelled to marry him and then he took her to the house of accused No.2 Sharanamma at Jewargi and she was confined their till 01.12.2015.
4. When the victim girl was not found, the complainant has lodged a complaint in this regard and subsequently, the victim girl was traced in Jewargi bus stand and she was brought to the police station and she narrated the incident. Then, the investigating officer investigated the crime and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 368, 370 and 506 of IPC and Sections 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act. The accused were arrested and subsequently, were enlarged on bail. After submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge has taken the cognizance of the offences and the accused were represented by their counsel. They were 5 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 furnished with the prosecution papers in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the charge was framed under Sections 366, 368 and 506 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused have denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and relied on 10 documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.11. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. are recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence.
6. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 6 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 However he has convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 368 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 12 of the POCSO Act while accused No.2 was convicted for the offence under Section 368 read with Section 34 of IPC. After hearing the arguments, the learned Special Judge has imposed the sentence of seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, sentence of seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 368 of IPC and sentence of two years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO.
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused have filed these appeals under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.200092/2018 is filed by accused No.1 while Criminal Appeal No.200097/2018 is filed by accused No.2. Since both these appeals are arise out of the same judgment, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 7 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records.
9. The learned counsels for the appellants/accused would contend that the victim is alleged to be 17 years, but there is no material evidence regarding her date of birth. It is further asserted that the 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of the victim is contrary to the evidence and age of the victim itself is not proved and the manner in which the victim behaved, it is evident that she herself has voluntarily accompanied the accused and their conduct disclose that it is a love affair. They would also contend that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, at the most the offence under Section 363 of IPC is attracted, but not the other offences. Further it is asserted that as against accused No.2, there is absolutely no evidence and even the place wherein the victim said to have been continued, no mahazar was drawn and hence, as against accused No.2, there is absolutely no piece 8 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 of evidence. It is asserted that in the absence of primary evidence in respect of date of birth of the victim, she cannot be termed as a minor and considering her conduct all along voluntarily accompanying without raising any objection as per her own case, it is evident that it is not a case of either kidnap or otherwise. Hence, they would contend that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate any of these aspects in proper perspective and has erroneously convicted the accused. Hence, it is prayed for allowing both these appeals by acquitting the accused by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of headmaster and school certificate disclose that the victim was less than 17 years and it is prima facie sufficient to prove that the victim was a minor and her consent does not have any relevancy. He would also contend that under Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, the sexual harassment is proved, as it is 9 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 alleged that the minor victim was being regularly followed by accused No.1 which is an offence. He would also assert that both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused by imposing a reasonable sentence. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the appeals.
11. Having heard the arguments and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence, now the following point would arise for my consideration:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.5/2016 dated 28.06.2018 is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?"
12. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the victim is aged about 17 years and on 12.11.2015 around 05-00 O' clock, when she had been to the shop of C.W.8 for buying fair and lovely face cream, accused No.1 enticed her away under the guise of he loving her and then kept her in 10 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 Jewargi in the house of accused No.2 and went away. But subsequently, he returned and dropped the victim at bus stand Jewargi. It is alleged by the prosecution that then the police secured the victim from bus stand and after getting information, the further investigation was undertaken and her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement also came to be recorded.
13. In the instant case, the complainant was examined as P.W.1. He set the law in motion by lodging the complaint as per Ex.P.1. The allegations of the complaint disclose that on 12.11.2015, the victim went missing and the complaint was lodged on 19.11.2015 evening at 06-30 p.m. alleging that after search, they could not trace and since accused No.1 used to follow her, he alleged that he might have kidnapped the victim girl and lodged a complaint in this regard.
14. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and in his examination, he has reiterated the complaint allegations and further asserted that the accused used to follow and 11 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 tease his daughter i.e., the victim under the guise of marrying her and he and his son warned the accused in this regard. Though it is alleged in the complaint that he has advised the accused in this regard, but in his examination-in- chief he asserted that he did not enquire with the accused in this regard. His further evidence discloses that she was found missing on 12.1.2015 from 05-00 p.m. and after searching her, he lodged a complaint. In the cross-examination, when a suggestion was made that his daughter i.e., the victim and accused No.1 had been to Mangalweda, he pleaded his ignorance and he further denied that his daughter took accused No.1. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness and his evidence does not have any much relevancy. He did not disclose the age or date of birth of his daughter i.e., the victim.
15. P.W.3 Ningaraj is the brother of the victim and son of the complainant and he has also deposed in terms of statement given by the complainant. He denied that the victim was more than 17 years and he denied the rest of the 12 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 allegations and according to him from his sister, he got information that accused No.1 took her and kept in the house of accused No.2.
16. P.W.4 Sharanayya is a circumstantial witness and as per the case of the prosecution, the victim had been to his shop for purchasing fair and lovely fairness cream and later on from there she was taken away, but he turned hostile and denied the case of the prosecution.
17. P.W.7 is the spot mahazar witness and he has turned hostile initially and in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the complainant has shown from where his daughter was kidnapped and there, a spot mahazar was drawn. As per the records, the spot mahazar was done on 19.11.2015 itself. As on that date, the place of offence was not known to the complainant and only on suspicion, a complaint was filed on that day. But how the spot was shown on 19.11.2015 itself wherein it is alleged that the victim was taken away is not at all explained 13 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 by the prosecution. The allegations were regarding the accused enticing away the child, but the complaint allegations were only he enticing away when she had been to the shop of C.W.8. But exact spot was not known till the victim returns, but on 19.11.2015, itself before return of the victim, the mahazar was drawn. Hence, this creates serious doubt regarding genuineness of case of the prosecution as specific spot mahazar was drawn before the spot is being ascertained.
18. P.W.8 has deposed regarding delivering the FIR to the Court and P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the investigating officers while P.W.11 is a Civil Judge and JMFC, who has recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. marked at Ex.P.9.
19. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.W.2, who is the victim. In her evidence, she deposed that on 12.11.2015, evening at 05-00 O'clock she had been to the shop of Sharanayya Puranik for purchasing 14 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 fair and lovely fairness cream and there, accused No.1 was present. She further deposed that since last six months, the accused used to assert that he is loving her and intended to marry her and she did not accept and then, she asserts that he enticed away and took her in a bus to Jewargi and there he took her to the house of accused No.2 wherein accused No.2 taken accused No.1 on task for bringing the victim. She further asserted that she has stayed in the house of accused No.2 for 20 days and then accused No.1 returned after 20 days asserting that he secured the job and left her in Jewargi bus stand and from there, she was brought to police station by police. Her cross-examination is very much relevant wherein she deposed that the accused had caught her hand and she did not raise any voice while they traveled by bus. She also asserted that she did not complain before the driver and conductor of the bus and the house of accused No.2 was situated in a farm and she did not verify whether the other houses are situated adjoining. She denied regarding she taking away accused No.1 to different places such as, 15 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 Amberkhed, Chamnal, Sangola and Magalweda etc. A suggestion was made to this witness that they were caught hold in Mangalweda and the police have taken them into custody in Mangalweda, but she denied the said suggestion. But her evidence disclose that she do not know where Jewargi Police Station is situated. She has also specifically asserted that when accused No.1 took her, she did not made any attempt to escape. She admitted that in bus stand, number of passengers were there including the police and she did not made any attempt to report the matter to the Controller or the police against the accused. She also admitted that she has not objected accused No.1 for taking away while accompanying her. She claims that after police brought her to the police station, she was produced before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded. Even she admitted in her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement that she did not refer the name of accused No.2 and she has also did not assert regarding accused No.1 enticing her away, but claims that she has stated regarding the accused under the guise of 16 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 marriage taken her. On perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is evident that she accompanied accused No.1 all along voluntarily and she has not resisted though in Jewargi bus stand, number of passengers, controller and police officials were present. Even her evidence discloses that she has not raised any issue with the driver and conductor of the bus. Hence, it is evident that she has without any resistance, voluntarily accompanied accused No.1. As regards accused No.2 absolutely no evidence is forthcoming to show that she was kept in the house of accused No.2.
20. The investigating officer has not secured any documents to show that accused No.2 possessed any house. The prosecution has relied on ROR of the land bearing Sy.No.322/B belonging to P.W.6, but P.W.6 specifically asserts that in the said land, there is no house or cattle shed and the in land belonging to his brother Ravikumar bearing Sy.No.322/2(B), the house and cattle shed is situated. However, he specifically asserts that he do not know where accused No.2 is residing. What is the base for roping 17 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 accused No.2 is not at all forthcoming and the further investigating officer has not bothered to collect any material evidence during the course of the investigation as to the residence of accused No.2. He has not even drawn the mahazar at the said spot wherein accused No.2 was said to be residing wherein the victim is alleged to have been confined for nearly 20 days. Hence, absolutely, there is no evidence regarding the confinement of the victim by accused No.1 in the house of accused No.2 so as to attract the offence under Section 368 of IPC. The minimum investigation regarding drawing spot mahazar was also not done by the investigating officer which discloses that in a mechanical way, only on the basis of the statement, he has drawn the inference and interestingly, spot mahazar of alleged kidnap was done prior to getting the information of exact spot. Hence it is evident that the investigating officer has not at all applied his mind and in a mechanical way submitted the charge sheet.
18 Crl.A.No.200092/2018C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
21. The evidence of the victim also discloses that she stayed in the house of accused No.2 for 20 days and in this period, accused No.1 was not stayed there and it is not her case she was confined in a room or not allowed to go out. It is hard to accept that when she was a free bird for 20 days, she did not made any attempt to escape from the said house nor tried to ascertain the names of neighbours. Hence, the entire approach of the victim girl is also doubtful. The evidence also discloses that now the victim girl is married and when the questions were tried to be put in this regard, they were disallowed by the Court on the ground that it is no way concerned. But that clearly discloses that after marriage only the victim intend to protect her interest and giving inconsistent and contrary version against the accused.
22. Ex.P.9 is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she deposed that on 12.11.2015, evening at 05-00 O' clock when she had been to bring fair and lovely fairness cream accused No.1 came there and under the guise of marrying her, took her 19 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 and kept her in his relative's house. She further stated in her statement that from his relative's house when he was intending to take her to Jewargi and when she was waiting in a bus stand, the police came there and took her to the police station and then produced before the Court. This statement of the victim was completely inconsistent and contrary. Her conduct discloses that she has voluntarily accompanied accused No.1 and it is not a case of enticing.
23. All along the prosecution has alleged that the victim is aged about 17 years and in this regard, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.5 Head master of Government Higher Secondary School, Yadrami who claims that he has issued Ex.P.4 and the date of birth is recorded as 08.08.1999. However, his cross- examination discloses that he cannot say on which date the victim was admitted in the school, who has got admitted her and on what basis, her date of birth was recorded. Hence, the evidence of P.W.5 does not establish that the victim is aged less than 18 years. In this context, the learned counsel 20 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2017 Cr.R. 928 (Kant.) (Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka). In the said case it is noticed that the evidence of the prosecutrix shows that she went with the accused voluntarily and she was also aged about 17 years. As such taking her away from lawful guardianship does not arise at all. In the instant case also her age all along is alleged to be 17 years and the evidence discloses that she has voluntarily accompanied accused No.1. Her conduct discloses that she has not raised any issue.
24. While recording her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.11 was required to put preliminary questions and though there is a certification that she has put those questions, but they were not found in 164 of Cr.P.C. statement recorded by her. In view of the above cited decision, the question of enticing the victim does not arise at all, as her age itself is at the stake. Apart from that the victim categorically asserted that there is no physical relationship between herself and accused in this period. Apart from all along it is the case of 21 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 the prosecution that accused No.1 used to follow her and used to tease her, but the statement of the victim discloses that the accused used to express his love and under the guise of marriage took away. These stands are inconsistent and the ingredients of Section 12 of POCSO Act are not applicable in this regard.
25. The learned counsel for the appellants has further placed reliance on a decision reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 435, (State of Karnataka Vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral) wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
A. Penal Code, 1860 - S.376 - Rape -
Prosecutrix going with accused voluntarily to several places and staying with him in lodges - Evidence regarding her age doubtful and not convincing - Medical evidence showing that she was used to sexual intercourse - Prosecutrix not clearly stating that accused had sexual intercourse with her except stating that he did something which he ought not to have 22 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 done - Held, in absence of some other evidence to support prosecution case that the accused had sexual intercourse with her offence under S. 376 not made out.
B. Penal Code, 1860 - S.376 - Age of Prosecutrix - Determination of - Medical evidence based on various tests showing that the prosecutrix was of 18 to 20 years
- Entry in school register made on the basis of information given by her parents showing her age to be below 16 years -
Prosecutrix stating that her age could extend to 16 or 17 years also - Held, evidence regarding age doubtful and not very convincing - Age.
26. In the instant case also the prosecution has simply relied on Ex.P.4 which is not an authenticated document, as P.W.1 never claimed that the date of birth is entered as per his instruction and P.W.5 in unable to say at whose instruction, the date of birth was entered. Further she was not subjected to any medical examination to ascertain 23 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 her age also. The prosecutrix has specifically asserted that there is no sexual intercourse and all along she though claimed aged to be 17 years, there is no material evidence and the age of the prosexutrix itself is doubtful and not convincing. In the absence of proving the specific age of the victim to show that she is less than 18 years, the allegations of the prosecution that accused No.1 enticed away holds no water as the evidence on record clearly disclose that the prosecutrix/victim voluntarily accompanied accused No.1 and she never raised any resistance all along.
27. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate any of these facts and circumstances in proper way and as against accused No.2, he did not discus anything and simply convicted accused No.2 for the offence under Section 368 of IPC without there being any evidence. The conduct of the investigating officer is also doubtful as before specific knowledge of enticing the victim from a particular spot, the spot mahazar was being done and interestingly no mahazar was done wherein the victim was alleged to be confined. No 24 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 attempt was made by the investigating officer to visit the said spot and the victim was not willing to disclose the true fact since she is now married. It appears that she had love affair with accused No.1 and since she is now married, she is not interested in getting involved in other complications and in a mechanical way deposing in favour of the prosecution. Her examination-in-chief and 164 of Cr.P.C. statement does not corroborate with each other.
28. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way proceeded to convict the accused. He has accepted the school certificate as per Ex.P.4 as genuine and admittedly, it is not a SSLC marks card so as to accept the date of birth as a genuine birth as observed by the Apex Court. Even P.W.1 never claimed that the date of birth of the victim was entered as per his instruction and he did not whisper the date of birth of his daughter. All these facts and circumstances clearly establish that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 25 Crl.A.No.200092/2018 C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018 The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate any of these aspects especially the cross-examination of the victim and she voluntarily accompanying accused No.1 and he blindly accepting the examination-in-chief, proceeded to convict the accused Nos.1 and 2 without there being any specific place wherein accused No.2 is being residing and the victim being confined. The approach of the learned Special Judge is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I am constrained to answer the point under consideration in the Affirmative. Hence, the appeal needs to be allowed and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Both the appeals are allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.5/2016 dated 28.06.2018 is set aside.26 Crl.A.No.200092/2018
C.W.Crl.A.No.200097/2018
Accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants are acquitted for the offences under Section 368 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1/appellant is acquitted for the offences under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants are set at liberty forthwith.
The bail bonds executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to them.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP