Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.315 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri Ramesh,
S/o Padmayya Poojary,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Kulai House,
Konalu Village,
Puttur Taluk-574 201. .. Petitioner
(By Sri C.Suresha, Advocate )
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bangalore-560 001. .. Respondent
( By Sri V.S.Vinayaka, HCGP )
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of
conviction dated 29.09.2005 made in C.C.No.1471/1999 by the
Court of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) and J.M.F.C., Bantwala, D.K.
and the judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 made in
Crl.Appeal No.337/2005 by the Court of II Addl.District and
Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore and acquit him of the offences
with which they were convicted by the Courts below, in the
interest of justice.
Crl.R.P.No.315/2013
2
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner was tried as accused by the Court of learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `trial Court') in C.C.No.1471/1999, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `IPC') and was convicted by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.09.2005 and was sentenced accordingly.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.337/2005, before the learned II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge's Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 3 dated 22.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that, on the date 31.03.1999, at about 9.30 p.m., when the informant Sri D.Gopala Rao (PW-1/ CW-1) was going to his house on a Scooter bearing registration No.KA-19-J-2098 on National Highway No.48, towards a place called Melkar, a Goods Tempo motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-2698 being driven by the present petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, came to its extreme right side and dashed to the Scootarist Gopala Rao (PW-1), due to which, said Gopala Rao, along with Scooter, fell into a ditch on the side of the road. After dashing to the Scooter, the said Tempo went further and dashed to three to four persons who were on the side of the road, among them, PW-2/CW-2 Dharmaswamy, PW-3/CW-3 Bhaskar Belchada, sustained injuries and another person by name Sri Nagesh, who was also with them, sustained grievous injuries. The Tempo Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 4 proceeded a bit further and came to a halt. The injured Nagesh was taken to the hospital, where while under treatment, he succumbed to the injuries and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC.
3. The accused appeared in the trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses from PW-1 to PW-15 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-12. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined, however, a portion of statement of PW-3 was got marked as Ex.D-1.
4. The respondent - State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. The trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
Crl.R.P.No.315/20135
6. Heard learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State who are physically present in the Court.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:
Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge's Court that the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that PW-1 has stated about he sustaining the injuries in the incident, however, since he claims to have Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 6 fallen in the ditch in the accident, he could not have seen the said Tempo dashing to the other persons on the side of the road, including PW-2, PW-3 and deceased Nagesh. He also stated that PW-3 has stated in his cross-examination that he had been to a liquor shop in the night at about 9.00 O'Clock. Therefore, it establishes that PW-2, PW-3 and the deceased were all inebriated and in order to avoid them, the driver of the Tempo has taken his vehicle on the right side, however, the act of PW-2, PW-3 and the deceased have made it that the deceased sustained injuries in the incident. However, while concluding his arguments, he also submitted that, if at all the Court comes to a conclusion of confirming the impugned judgments, the sentence ordered by the trial Court considerably be reduced.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent in his argument submitted that the very manner in which the accident has occurred has been detailed by PW-2 and PW-3, who undisputedly are the Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 7 injured witnesses. Their undenied evidence clearly go to show that the accused was the driver of the Tempo vehicle, who was not just rash in driving, but, also negligent, which has resulted in he first dashing to a Scooter coming from the opposite direction and thereafter, to PW-2, PW-3, deceased Nagesh and another person. It is appreciating these aspects, since both the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences and sentenced him accordingly, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
11. The petitioner has not denied or disputed the occurrence of the road traffic accident on the date, time and place mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner also has not denied the involvement of a motor vehicle Tempo bearing registration No.KA-20-2698 in the accident and that the accused was the driver of the said vehicle at the relevant point of time. These statements were also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 8 arguments. However, learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the petitioner would not accept that Nagesh died due to the accident since the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has not been examined.
12. Among the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1/CW-1 D.Gopala Rao in his evidence has stated that, on the date of the accident, he was going on his Scooter bearing registration No.KA-19-J-2098 from Rakteshwara Temple on B.C.Road towards his house on the road leading to Melkar. At that time, near a place called Uppugudde, while he was riding his Scooter on the left side of the road, a Tempo motor vehicle being driven by its driver in a speed manner and coming from opposite direction i.e., from Melkar side, and proceeding towards B.C. road, dashed to his Scooter and then it took a left curve, due to the said accident, he fell down from the Scooter. After dashing to his Scooter, the said Tempo vehicle proceeded to its left side and dashed to few people Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 9 who were there on the side of the road. The witness has stated that, in the incident, he sustained injuries and about three to four persons to whom the Tempo dashed, also sustained injuries. Stating that he has seen the accused at the time of the accident at 9.30 p.m. on the said day, the witness has identified the accused in the Court as the driver of the alleged offending Tempo vehicle.
The witness has further stated that, thereafter he took treatment at Government Hospital, Bantwal and went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. The witness has identified his complaint at Ex.P-1. He further stated that, on the next day, the police visited the spot as shown by him, where they drew a scene of offence panchanama at per Ex.P-2.
This witness adhered to his original version even in his detailed cross-examination from the accused side. He denied the suggestion that he fell into the ditch due to Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 10 high beam light from the vehicles coming from the opposite side.
13. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have also given their evidence about the incident on the lines of what PW-1 has stated. These three witnesses have stated that, at the time of the accident, they were going on the road by walk near Uppugudde on the National Highway. It was at that time, the offending Tempo vehicle being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the Scooter which was coming from the opposite side and thereafter, the said Tempo losing its control, came towards these people and dashed to them. Due to the said accident, they sustained injuries and among them, one Sri Nagesh sustained grievous injuries. All these witnesses have identified the accused in the Court as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
They further stated that, after the accident, the injured Nagesh was shifted to hospital and these people Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 11 also were taken to the hospital, where they were given treatment by the doctor. These witnesses further stated that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident by Nagesh, he succumbed to the same while under treatment.
These witnesses were subjected to a detailed cross- examination from the accused side, however, these witnesses adhered to their original version.
14. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 would go to show that, about the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and the accused being the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, all these witnesses have given their evidence uniformly. Their statements about the occurrence of the accident near Uppugudde on National Highway-48, on a road leading towards Melkar, has not been specifically denied in the cross-examination of the witnesses. Even the evidence of these witnesses that the Tempo vehicle was being driven by the accused and it Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 12 dashed to the Scooter and thereafter to them, also has not been denied in the cross-examination of these witnesses.
On the other hand, in the cross-examination of PW-2, a suggestion was made to the witness at two places suggesting that after dashing to the Scooter, the Tempo for the first time dashed to PW-2. Further, it was also suggested to the same witness that when the accident occurred, PW-2 was going on the side road. By suggesting these suggestions to PW-2, the accused has admitted the occurrence of the accident. He has also admitted that the offending Tempo vehicle after dashing to the Scooter, firstly dashed to PW-2. Thus, apart from not denying specifically the occurrence of the accident, the accused himself has suggested to PW-2, the injured eye witness, about the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Tempo vehicle in the accident.
15. One more similar admission in the form of suggestion was also made in the cross-examination Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 13 of PW-3 from the accused side. It was suggested to PW-3 that the Tempo vehicle came from behind of the witness and his companion and dashed to them. The witness answered stating that the Tempo first dashed to the Scooter and thereafter, dashed to them. By making the said suggestion and eliciting the reply, the accused has admitted the Tempo dashing to PW-3 and his companions. PW-3 has stated that, at the time of the accident, deceased Nagesh, PW-2 Dharmaswamy and PW-4 Sundar were also with him.
Thus, from the above admission, the accused has not only confirmed the occurrence of the accident, but, also of the fact that it was the alleged Tempo vehicle which has caused the accident and in the process, it first dashed to the Scooter and thereafter to PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, including deceased Nagesh.
16. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 specifically shows that it was the accused and accused only Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 14 who was driving the offending Tempo vehicle. All these four witnesses have apart from stating that they had seen the accused on the spot at the time of the accident in the light which was available there, have also identified the accused in the Court as the driver of the offending vehicle. Their evidence on these lines has not been specifically denied in the cross-examination of those witnesses. Therefore, it stands further established that it was the accused and accused alone who was driving the alleged Tempo vehicle which caused the accident.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner who specifically has not denied the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Tempo motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-2698 and the fact that the accused was the driver of the said Tempo vehicle, however, has submitted in his argument that there is no cogent evidence to prove the death of Nagesh as due to the accident.
Learned High Court Government Pleader has stated that the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 that deceased Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 15 Nagesh succumbed to the injuries that were sustained by him in the accident has not been specifically denied in their cross-examination. As such, the death of Nagesh was due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident has been established.
18. PW-1 has stated that, after the Tempo vehicle hitting his Scooter and he falling in the ditch, it proceeded further and dashed to few persons standing on the other side of the road. He also stated that he came to know while under treatment that the injured Nagesh, who had sustained injuries in the accident, succumbed to the same.
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 who have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses to the incident also have specifically and categorically stated that after the accident, apart from them, even injured Nagesh was also shifted to the Government Hospital at Bantwal. Though PW-2 was satisfied with the treatment given there, however, injured Nagesh was referred to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru, for Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 16 his higher treatment. On the next day, PW-2 also went there to that hospital. All these three witnesses have further stated that the injured Nagesh succumbed to the injuries while under treatment in the hospital at Mangaluru. Their specific statement that injured Nagesh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident has not been specifically denied in their cross-examination.
In addition to the above, PW-6/CW-6 Sundar Sapalya and PW-7/CW-5 Bhaskar Sapalya, the brothers of the deceased Nagesh have also in their evidence stated that, after coming to know about the accident, they went to the hospital, however, they could not save their brother injured Nagesh, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident while under treatment in the hospital.
19. Added to the above, PW-11/CW-12 Ramesh Poojary has stated that the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased Nagesh was drawn in his Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 17 presence as per Ex.P-6 and that he has subscribed his signature therein as a pancha to the said panchanama. The said witness was not cross-examined from the accused side.
20. In addition to the above, the marking of the Post Mortem Examination Report at Ex.P-12 by PW-15/CW-20 M.Shekarappa, Circle Inspector, in his further examination-in-chief has not been objected to from the accused side. On the other hand, after the said document came to be marked through PW-15 in his further examination-in-chief, the said witness was not cross-examined from the accused side.
The said post mortem report, apart from enlisting the injuries found on the deceased, also shows the cause of death as was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. A suggestion put to Investigating Officer (PW-15) in his cross-examination that the deceased died Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 18 due to cardio-arrest was not admitted as true by the said witness.
Thus, the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P-6 and the post mortem report at Ex.P-12, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Nagesh was due to the injuries sustained by him in the above discussed road traffic accident. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no materials to hold that deceased Nagesh died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, is not acceptable.
21. PW-1 has stated that, in the accident, due to the Tempo dashing to his Scooter and he felling in a ditch, he sustained injuries. PW-2 also has stated that when Tempo dashed to him, he also sustained injuries. Both these witnesses have stated that they have taken treatment in the hospital.
Crl.R.P.No.315/201319
PW-13/CW-17 Dr.P.Saroja has stated in her evidence that she has examined PW-2, who had been to their hospital i.e., Government Wenlock Hospital at Mangaluru and noticed the injuries on him. After detailing the injuries, which included fracture injuries of three fingers of right foot, the doctor has opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 were simple in nature and other injuries were grievous. She has identified the wound certificate issued by her in that regard at Ex.P-8.
PW-14/CW-16 Dr.K.P.Hanumantha Rao has stated that, while working as Medical Officer in Government Hospital at Bantwal on the night of 31.03.1999, he has examined CW-1 who had come to his hospital with the history of sustaining injuries in an accident. After giving the details of the injuries found on the patient, the doctor has opined that those injuries were simple in nature. He has identified the wound certificate said to have been issued by him in that regard at Ex.P-9.
Crl.R.P.No.315/201320
The very same witness has also stated that, apart from he examining and treating CW-2 -Dharmaswamy, he has also examined and treated CW-3 Bhaskar Belchada on the same day and at the same time who had come to his hospital with the same history of injuries in a road traffic accident. The witness has stated that, he has noticed the fracture of his left arm and a lacerated wound on right hand and pain on the back. The witness has classified the injuries as grievous in nature and has identified the wound certificate at Ex.P-10 shown to have been given by him in that regard.
The very same witness has further stated that on the same day and at the same time, he has also examined one more patient by name Sundar (PW-4), who too had come up with the history of injuries in a road traffic accident at the same time. The witness has stated that he has noticed the injuries on the back portion in the form of pain on the patient and has opined that it was simple in nature. Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 21
The evidence of these two doctors has not been seriously disputed in their cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14 establishes that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 sustained injuries in the accident, including both simple and grievous in nature.
22. The evidence of PW-12/CW-15 K.R.Adyanthaya, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, shows that the said witness has examined the conditions of the vehicles involved in the accident and after noticing the damages caused to both the vehicles and their breaking system, has opined that accident was not due to any mechanical defect of either of the vehicles. Thus, it also establishes that the accident in question was not due to any mechanical defect with either of the vehicles.
23. In the above circumstances, the last point that remains for consideration is whether driving of the Tempo vehicle by the accused at the time of accident was rash and negligent. In that regard, it is once again the Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 22 evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 plays an important role. All these witnesses have uniformly stated that they have seen the Tempo vehicle coming in a high speed. They have further stated that it first dashed to PW-1, who was coming in the opposite direction on its extreme left side of the road upon his Scooter bearing registration No.KA-19-J- 2098 and thereafter, the Tempo took a left curve and being uncontrolled by the driver, dashed to PWs.2, 3 and 4 and deceased Nagesh who were on the left side of the road. The scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P-2 also shows that the alleged accident has taken place on a road which was 22 ft. in its width. The narration goes to show that there were tyre marks about 15 ft. printed on the road pertaining to the Tempo vehicle.
Thus, the description of the manner of occurrence of accident would clearly go to show that the Tempo vehicle first went to its right side and dashed to PW-1, who was riding his Scooter and thereafter, it again took a left curve and dashed to PWs.2, 3 and 4 and Nagesh. The impact Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 23 was so remarkable that the impression of the tyre mark due to the application of the break was also imprinted on the road, but, still the vehicle could not come to a control and could not come to halt immediately. According to the eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-3, the Tempo after dashing to the Scooter, proceeded for about 20 ft. and then dashed to them, still, without stopping, it proceeded ahead for about 15 ft. before coming to a halt. Thus, the driver could not control the vehicle well in time and even after dashing to PW-1 and his Scooter, it once again proceeded and dashed to PWs.2 to 4 and Nagesh and thereafter, went 15 ft. ahead and came to a halt. This clearly go to show that the driving of the said vehicle was rash.
Further, the driver having seen PWs.2 to 4 and deceased Nagesh on the side of the road and also PW-1 with his Scooter coming from the opposite direction, since could not control his vehicle and on the pretext of avoiding PWs.2 to 4, took the vehicle to extreme right and Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 24 dashed to PW-1, itself would go to show that he was also negligent in driving. Thus, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the Tempo vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner.
24. Even though the accused has taken the defence in the form of suggestion made to PW-1 in his cross- examination that PW-1 fell into the ditch because of opposite side vehicles high beam light, but, the said suggestion was not admitted by the said witness as true. Merely from the accused side suggestions were made to PWs.2, 3 and 4 stating that they, including the deceased, were in inebriated condition and that they themselves in their irregular crossing of the road, came and fell beneath the Tempo, was also not admitted by any of them. Merely because a liquor shop was said to be near the spot and PW-3 has stated that he had been to a liquor shop at 9.00 p.m. on the said day, cannot itself be construed as PWs.2, 3 and 4 and deceased Nagesh were in inebriated Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 25 condition. It is also for the reason that, PW-3 has stated that, he is running a liquor shop near the spot and that, at the time of the accident, he had closed the shop and was going along with PW-4 and Nagesh, as such, PW-3 also cannot be in an inebriated condition. Further, no suggestion was made to the witness in that regard. As such, the defence taken by the accused won't sustain. Thus, it has to be necessarily held that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Since both the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court have after appreciating and analysing the evidence placed before them in their proper perspective arrived at a conclusion holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences, I do not find any reason to interference in the finding of the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court.
26. It is the sentencing policy that, the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 26 guilt of the accused. It must not be either exorbitant or for namesake.
27. In the instant case, the present petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fourtyfive days for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of fourtyfive days for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 27 `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the sentence ordered against the petitioner is exorbitant. Further, the accident has occurred in the year 1999, which is twentythree years back. The accused has crossed his middle age and having family and dependants. As such also, the sentence ordered must be considerably be reduced.
29. A perusal of the evidence of the witnesses would go to show that PWs.2, 3 and 4 have stated that after the accident, they were shifted to the hospital in the very same Tempo which has caused accident to them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the accused himself who has shifted the injured with the help of the localites to the hospital, as such, he has taken care of the injured without wasting further time. Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 28 Moreover, the accused is said to be now nearing the age of senior citizen and with greater degree of responsibility also.
In the said circumstances, I am of the view that, the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the accused requires a revisit to make it proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It is only to that extent, the impugned order on sentence warrants interference at the hands of this Court.
30. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in-part.
[ii] Though the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, in C.C.No.1471/1999, dated 29.09.2005, which was further confirmed by the learned II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.337/2005, dated 22.02.2013, holding the present petitioner Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 29 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands confirmed, however, the order on sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, is reduced from three months to two months simple imprisonment for each of the offences and the sentence of imprisonment ordered for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC is reduced from six months to four months. The payment of fine and default sentence remains unaltered for these three offences.
For the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to six months simple imprisonment. The fine amount remains as it is, whereas, the default sentence also stands reduced from six months to three months imprisonment and the imprisonment would be simple in nature.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Crl.R.P.No.315/2013 30 The period of judicial custody the petitioner/accused has undergone, if any, in the matter would be given set-off as per Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioner/accused shall voluntarily surrender before the trial Court within 45 days from today and serve the sentence of imprisonment as ordered against him.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records forthwith for doing needful in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/