- 1 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.887 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,

ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,

MYSURU-570001

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B. B. PATIL, SPECIAL PP.)

AND:

MR. BALARAM V. M.

S/O MARISWAMYGOWDA

AGE: 35 YEARS,

SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE,

K R NAGAR TALUK,

DIST: MYSORE-571602

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI. ADITYA D., ADV.)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.08.202 0

AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S

7,13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 24.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

- 2 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

CAV JUDGMENT

State by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lokayukta, Mysuru has

preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 18

th

August, 2020, passed in Special Case No.401 of 2018 by the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (for short “the

trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred to as per rank and status before the trial court.

3. Brief facts leading to the appeal are that, Anti-

Corruption Bureau Police (for short "ACB Police") r egistered

case in Crime No.6 of 2017 against the accused, who is the

Taluk Surveyor working in KR Nagar, Mysore district for offence

punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of complaint filed by

one Nagaraju. It is stated in complaint that the first informant

is the owner of land in three survey numbers situat ed in

Kaggere Village and in November 2016, he has filed application

with the Survey Office for putting boundary stones to his land,

and since then though he was repeatedly visiting the office. His

work was not being attended to, and on the other ha nd, the

Survey Supervisor was telling him that the files will be taken up

on seniority basis and ultimately it is alleged that few days

- 3 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

prior to filing the First Information Report, the s urvey

supervisor told him that his file has been entrusted to Taluk

Surveyor viz. Sri V.M. Balaram, the accused herein. When the

first informant enquired with the accused regarding his work, it

is alleged that accused demanded illegal gratificat ion for

conducting survey of the lands of first informat on priority

basis, else the work would be delayed. It is alleged that on 3

rd

May 2017, notice was served upon the first informant fixing the

date of survey on 5

th

May 2017 and on that day, the accused,

along with his staff, visited the informants land and conducted

survey and after conducting survey, it is alleged that accused

demanded by of Rs.6,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- for each survey

number to finish the survey and to give report. Further, it is

alleged that the accused collected Rs.1,000/- as ad vance

amount and the remaining to be given within few day s. Since

the first informant was not interested in getting his work done

by paying the bribe, he approached the ACB Police a nd gave

complaint which has resulted in registration of a C rime and

thereafter, after following usual procedures, Police have set up

trap and at the time of trap on 8

th

May, 2017 Which was held in

the office of the accused, it is alleged that the accused was

caught red handed with the tainted amount. The inve stigating

officer arrested the accused on 8

th

May, 2017 and produced

- 4 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

before the court. Then investigating officer laid charge-sheet

against accused for the aforestated commission of o ffences.

Upon hearing on charges, charges were framed for th e

commission of alleged offences. Same was explained to the

accused. Having understood the same, accused pleade d not

guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution

has examined ten witnesses in all as PWs1 to 10 and marked

33 documents as Exhibits P1 to P33 and thirteen mat erial

objects as MOs1 to 13. On closure of prosecution s ide

evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code

of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused had to tally

denied evidence appearing against him. However, ac cused did

not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having

heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court has

acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgm ent of

acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.

4. Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing for the appellant-State would submit that the trial

court has failed in appreciating the entire case of prosecution

and the evidence of the prosecution in its proper perspective.

He would submit that the trial court has failed appreciate that

though PW1 is treated as hostile, he has identified the mahazar

- 5 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

at Exhibit P3 drawn in the office of the respondent and has not

denied the fact of lodging complaint before the appellant. The

trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused

merely on the ground that she has been treated as h ostile by

ignoring the other corroborative evidence proved by the

prosecution. The trial Court has failed to take not e of the

evidence of PW3 who supported the case of the prose cution by

stating that on the day of trap, respondent demanded the bribe

amount and PW1 handed over the tainted amount to th e

respondent. Respondent received the same from his right hand

and put it in the right pocket of his trousers. The trial court has

committed an error in relying upon the minor inconsistencies in

the evidence of prosecution witnesses and ignoring the vital

electronic evidence. The trial Court has committed grave error

in ignoring Exhibit P1 which is provisional mahazar wherein the

demand of bribe recorded in cell phone is mentioned , which

clearly shows that there was demand for illegal gra tification.

The trial Court has committed an error in ignoring Exhibit P3

trap mahazar where both the hands of the respondent turned

pink during the test. If it is the case of the respondent that the

amount was forcefully kept in his pocket by PW1, there was no

occasion to count the same by the respondent with both hands.

It was a specific case of the prosecution that the respondent

- 6 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

demanded the bribe amount and after receiving it, he counted

the same with both the hands and kept in his pocket. The trial

court has failed to appreciate that trap was successful and the

test conducted with respect to both the hands and the pocket

of the trousers were positive. The trial court has committed

error in acquiring the accused by ignoring the vital electronic

evidence presented by the prosecution which contain s the

conversation between PW1 and respondent regarding d emand

of bribe. The trial court has erred in not appreciating that even

though the PW1 has turned hostile, the evidence pro duced by

the prosecution proves that the demand of illegal gratification

by the respondent. The trial court has erred in concluding that

the evidence of all the witnesses is not corroborating to each

other in spite of clear and cogent evidence available before the

court in the form of electronic evidence and other records. On

all these grounds, it was sought to allow the appea l. To

substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on the following

judgments:

1. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. PRADEEP

KUMAR BANERJEE - (2025)4 SCC 111;

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHANDRAHASA - 2024

SCC ONLINE SC 3469;

- 7 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

3. PRAHLAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - (2019)14

SCC 438;

4. VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2015)3

SCC 220;

5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. C UMA

MAHESHWARA RAO (2004)4 SCC 399;

6. MUKUT BIHARI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(2012)11 SCC 642;

7. M NARASINGA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA

PRADESH - (2001)1 SCC 691;

8. BHANUPRASAD HARIPRASAD DAVE v. STATE OF

GUJARAT - 1968 SCC O NLINE SC 81;

9. HAZARI LAL v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) - (1980)2

SCC 390;

10. RAM SINGH VERSUS COL RAM SINGH - 1985

Supp. SCC 611;

11. NEERAJ DUTTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)-

(2023)4 SCC 731

5. On the other hand, Sri K Diwakara, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri Aditya D. Advocate for th e

respondent, would submit that the trial court has p roperly

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and

facts. Absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the

- 8 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The

learned Senior Counsel would further submit that th e appeal

itself is defective for the reason that the State has filed an

application under Section 195 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code to prosecute the complaint for perjury. The trial

Court has given finding that the application filed by the State is

not maintainable in law. The Prosecution has not p referred

appeal against the order passed by the trial Court on the

application filed under Section 195 read with Secti on 34 of

Indian Penal Code. When the prosecution has not ch allenged

the orders passed by the trial Court on the applica tion filed

under Section 195 read with Section 34 of Indian Pe nal Code,

the appeal itself is not maintainable is his submis sion.

Accordingly he sought for dismissal of the appeal. To fortify his

submissions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. MADAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025

LIVELAW (SC) 310;

2. B BALKISHAN v. THE STATE ACB, CIU RANGE

RENDERED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1162 OF

2017 DECIDED ON 29.01.2025;

3. HARSH DHINGRA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND

OTHERS - (2001)9 SCC 550;

4. KAILASH CHAND SHARMA v. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS - (2002)6 SCC 562;

- 9 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD, AND

OTHERS v. B KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS -

(1993)4 SCC 727.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

following point would arise for my consideration:

(1) Whether the trial court is justified in passing the

judgment of acquittal?

7. I have examined the materials placed before the

court. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is

necessary to mention here as to the decision of the Apex Court

in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND

ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC

433, as also the judgments in the case of BABU SAHE BGOUDA

RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; in the case of CHANDRA PPA v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and in the

case of H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in

(2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of H D SUNDARA (supra ), the

Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of

appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against

judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, as under:

- 10 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

“8. …8.1. The acquittal of the accused further

strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal

against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and

documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal

against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is

required to consider whether the view taken by the trial

court is a possible view which could have been taken on

the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate

court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground

that another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order

of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only

conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of th e

evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was

proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other

conclusion was possible.

”

In the said judgment, it is further observed that it is beyond

the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate

court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the

trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within

the four corners of the following principles:

"41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from

patent perversity;

- 11 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

41.2. That the same is based on a

misreading/omission to consider material evidence o n

record; and

41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and

only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is

possible from the evidence available on record.

”

8. In the case on hand, it is alleged by the prosecution

that accused being Taluk Surveyor working in K.R. N agar,

Mysuru District, being the public servant at the relevant point

of time, i.e. on 8

th

May 2017, demanded illegal gratification of

₹6,000/- from CW1 for conducting survey work in res pect of

lands in Survey No. 184/2, 185/2 and 186/2 of Kaggere village,

of which the accused received ₹1,000/- as advance o n the

same day and the remaining amount of ₹5,000/- was t old to be

paid within three days. In pursuance of the demand of illegal

gratification made by the accused on 8

th

May, 2017, at the time

of the trap at Taluk office, he accepted the tainted amount of

₹5,000/- being illegal gratification, other than le gal

remuneration, and thus he has demanded and accepted bribe

from CW1/PW1 as motive or reward for doing official work and

thereby committed the aforesaid offences punishable under the

provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Second ly, by so

demanding and accepting the bribe amount from PW1 b y

corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his positi on as a

- 12 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

public servant, accused obtained a pecuniary advant age for

himself and thereby has committed offence of crimin al

misconduct by a public servant as defined under sec tions

13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

9. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined ten witnesses as PWs1 to 10 and marked 33

documents as Exhibits P1 to P33 and thirteen material objects

were marked as MOs1 to 13.

10. CW1-Nagaraju, the complainant, has not supported

the case of the prosecution. This witness was treated as hostile

witness with the permission of the court was cross-examined

by the prosecution. Even in his cross-examination, he has

denied as the contents of Exhibits P1 to P4. Accor dingly,

prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from him

to substantiate its case.

11. PWs2 is the witness to trap and entrustment

mahazar.

12. PW3 is a shadow witness who has accompanied

PW1. He has further testified that on that day, he has

accompanied PW1 to the office of the accused. Accus ed

demanded for payment of bribe amount. PW1 replied that with

- 13 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

great difficulty, he has brought ₹5,000/-. Accused kept the

money in the right side pocket of his trousers. Wh en PW1

questioned about the survey report, he told that he is going to

give it on the next day. PW1 came out and gave signal to the

police. After 15 minutes, P1 came out and gave signal. He went

along with ACB police to the office. PW1, informed the police

that accused has collected ₹5000 from him. Police washed the

right hand of the accused in sodium carbonate solution, which

turned to Pink colour. The sum of ₹5,000/-, which was in the

right side pant pocket of the accused was handed ov er by the

accused to the police, which in turn was given to PW2. He has

tallied the denomination of currency notes with the notes

denomination of Exhibit P5-entrustment mahazar. The y have

identified the currency notes before the court. Aft er that

accused has been provided with alternate trousers and the pant

in which the money was kept, was washed with sodium

carbonate solution. They have identified the pant before the

court. The mobile chip wherein the conversation wa s held by

PW2 was fixed in a laptop and the conversation was transferred

to a compact disk. CW4 has identified the voice of the accused.

Accused has given explanation with regard to allegation. The

documents in respect of application of PW1 was prod uced by

the accused before ACB Police. Photographs were taken at that

- 14 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

time. Police have drawn the trap mahazar as per Ex hibit P3.

Their statements were recorded on 9

th

May 2017 in the Police

Station.

13. PW4 is the Assistant Director of Land Records. He

has repost in his statement that on 3 May 2018, ACB police

have written a letter to Tahsildar seeking certain documents.

The said letter was handed over to him. He has iss ued the

documents in respect of the appointment order of the accused.

The survey documents in regard to the property of complainant

is at Exhibit P14. ACB Police have written another letter on 12

th

June 2018 to Tashildar, KR Nagar seeking documents with

respect to survey details of the land of complainant. The said

documents were handed over to ACB Police, which are at

Exhibit P16.

14. PW5 is the Surveyor. He has deposed that he know

the accused. On 8

th

May 2017, accused was trapped, Police

called him to the spot and inform about the arrest of the

accused and also had given arrest notice which is Exhibit P17.

He has produced the documents. He has also certifie d the

attendance register which is at Exhibit P19. He has heard the

conversation recorded in the compact disc and ident ified the

voice of the accused. The police have drawn mahazar as per

- 15 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

Exhibit P3. At the time of collecting the voice sa mple of

accused and PW1, he was present. He has given state ment in

that regard.

15. PW6 is the Second Division Assistant in the Taluk

office. She has deposed that ACB Police have reques ted for

issuance of RTC with respect to lands in survey No. 184/2,

184/5, 186/2, 184/3 and 185/2. She has issued compu ter RTC

to the police.

16. PW8 is the forensic expert who has testified that on

15

th

June 2017, she has received sealed articles in PF No.6 of

2017 from ACB Police, Mysore. In Sl.No.1- Compact d isc, there

was the voice recording of complainant and accused. Sl.No.2 is

the sample voice of complainant. Sl.No.3 is the sample voice of

accused No.1. She has subjected the voice records to scientific

examination. After examination, she has opened tha t the

respective speeches said to be of Sri K.R. Nagaraju found in

compact disc marked as article No.10 and the sample speeches

found recorded in article No.12 are similar and bel ongs to

speaker. The respective speeches said to be of Sri V.M.

Balaram and the sample speeches found in compact di sc

marked as article No.13 are similar and belong to t he same

speaker. The report of expert is at Exhibit P27.

- 16 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

17. PW9 is the Police Inspector of V.V.Puram Police

Station who assisted CW14 in investigating the case.

18. PW10 is the sanctioning Authority and is the

Commissioner of Land Records, Bengaluru. He has iss ued

Sanction Order as at Exhibit P33.

19. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed on

record and on perusal of the impugned judgment of a cquittal

passed by the trial Court, at paragraphs 36 to 44 o f the

judgment, the trial court has given its finding. The same read

as under:

"36. Here in the present case, it is alleged in the

complaint that the accused made a demand for bribe

which has been recorded by him in his mobile. PW 1

gave a complaint as per Ex.P 1 along with the mobil e

chip containing the audio record of demand. But, he has

turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the detailed

cross-examination nothing has been brought out by t he

prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of

bribe amount by the accused.

37. The witnesses to entrustment mahazar and

trap mahazar PW 2 & 3, who are the official witness es

have testified that in their presence entrustment

mahazar was drawn and the phenolphthalein powder

notes were handed-over to the complainant. According to

prosecution, PW 3 was present at the time of handin g

over the tainted money to the accused. But, PW 3 who is

- 17 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

a shadow witness in his cross-examination has state d

that when he has reached the table of accused,

complainant was returning from the table of accused .

That apart, there were several persons in the office of

accused, several officials were also working, public were

also moving from one table to another, in that

atmosphere the trap was conducted. The aforesaid

version of PW 3 creates doubt as to his presence at the

time of handing over of tainted money by the accused.

38. Without the proof of demand by the accused

mere possession and recovery of currency notes woul d

not establish the offence u/s. 13(1)(d)(1) of Act. The

failure of prosecution to prove the demand for ille gal

gratification will be a fatal and mere recovery of the

amount from the person accused of the offence

39. Though PW 2 & 3 were present through out

the entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar, PW 3 is t he

witness who has followed PW 1 to the office of accused,

but he has not seen the complainant handing over th e

tainted money to the accused as per the cross-

examination statement several persons were there at the

time of trap. The complainant has failed to state

anything about filing of complaint for alleged demand of

bribe and acceptance of tainted money by the accuse d.

In regard to acceptance of powdered notes by the

accused during trap proceedings the complainant has

failed to utter anything about the acceptance of

powdered notes by the accused. The only witness PW 3

who has followed the complainant to the office of

accused has not seen the accused accepting the

- 18 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

powdered notes. The mobile number from which the ch ip

was taken is not noted in the entrustment mahazar.

40. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence

of PW 8 forensic expert to prove that the voice of

accused recorded in article 10 at Sl.No.1 is tallied with

sample speeches recorded in CD at article 12. According

to prosecution, the alleged demand made by the accused

which has been recorded by the complainant in his

mobile has been proved as the said recording tallied with

the sample audio record. According to complainant, on

05.05.2017 he has recorded the demand made by the

accused after concluding the work of survey. It is

astonishing to note that why the mobile number of

accused is not noted in the entrustment mahazar. Th e

complainant in his testimony before this court has

categorically stated that he has not recorded the audio

nor has handed-over the recording nor has handed-ov er

the mobile chip containing the conversation of accused

and complainant to the police. In the absence of

incriminatory statement of complainant doubt arises as

to under what circumstances the said recordings is

made. Thus, the report and testimony of PW 8 referr ed

to by prosecution would not in any way assist the case of

prosecution in proving that the accused has made a

demand for bribe.

41. Here in the present case, the survey is already

conducted by the accused. The allegation levelled against

him is after conducting survey he has made a demand

for bribe. As elicited in the cross-examination of PW 4

the superior officer of accused and PW 5 who is also the

staff of survey department the applications what ev er

- 19 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

submitted for survey of the land are submitted through

online, after verifying the applications the supervisor

would handover the applications for surveying the land

as per the seniority.

42. In the case on hand prior to the trap, accused

has concluded the survey. After uploading the surve y

details the sketch would be released. As per the

statement of superintendent of accused the surveyor s

were instructed to dispose of the applications on priority

basis as survey adalath was conducted. Accordingly,

accused has disposed off the application of the

informant. The alleged demand of bribe by the accus ed

according to entrustment mahazar is on 08.05.17 aft er

the survey. The demand made by the accused which ha s

been recorded in the mobile phone which alleged to have

been handed over by accused to the ACB police is

refuted by the complainant in his testimony before this

court. He failed to speak about handing over the mobile

recording to the ACB police. Except the Complainant no

other person has seen handing over of tainted money to

the accused, but the complainant turned hostile. Though

PW 2 & 3 have narrated in detail about the drawing of

entrustment and trap mahazar, but PW 2 have not see n

the accused handing over the tainted money, PW 3

though who was with the informant has not seen

informant handing over the money. The other witness es

are in relation to issuing the survey records, they have

categorically stated in their cross-examination on the

alleged date of incident there were several persons in

their office and PW 5 was not present when the samp le

voice of complainant and the accused was recorded i n

the office. He has rarely spoken to accused over mobile

- 20 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

phone, he has also stated as per the seniority the survey

would be conducted and the procedures are through

online.

43. The investigation officer has narrated in detail

about the drawing of entrustment mahazar and trap

mahazar and about the entire investigation. It is to be

noted that as per the explanation noted in Ex.P 23

accused has not made a demand for bribe, on the oth er

hand the amount was forcibly kept in his hand and h e

has been planted in the case. In view of the

contradictory version of complainant before this co urt

about the demand and acceptance of bribe, the

explanation offered by the accused seems to be

probable. The informant has failed to state about t he

demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. The

alleged witness PW 3 has not seen the accused receiving

a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant. The mater ial

on record do not probabalize the contention of

prosecution that the accused has received tainted money

from the complainant. In the absence of incriminato ry

statement of informant, in the absence of corroboration

of PW 3 who is alleged to be the shadow witness, th e

allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the

accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

44. As already stated, the demand and the

acceptance of gratification is sine qua non of offence

under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act and that unless and

until these ingredients are proved, the presumption

under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked.

Further, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the

guilt of the accused with conclusive proof and beyo nd

- 21 -

CRL.A No.887 of 2021

reasonable doubt. On careful analysis of the eviden ce

placed on record by the prosecution and the defense put

forth by the accused, this Court holds that the

prosecution has failed to prove the accusation made

against the accused persons beyond all reasonable

doubt. In the result, points for consideration are

answered in the 'Negative'."

20. On careful re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-

examination of the entire material on record, I do not find any

legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also

keeping in mind the decisions relied upon by the pa rties, as

also the aforestated decisions, I do not find any m aterial to

interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial

Court. Accordingly, I answer point that arose for consideration

in the negative.

21. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I proceed

to pass the following:

O R D E R

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA)

JUDGE

lnn