The State Of Karnataka vs G A Manjunath S/O. Ajjanna
2021 Latest Caselaw 3238 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                             BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2505/2012
BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, KOPPAL,
REPTED. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
LOKAYUKTA POLICE, DHARWAD.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.ANIL KALE, SPL.PP)

AND:

1.     G A MANJUNATH S/O. AJJANNA
       AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SDA IN THEKARNATAKA
       MINORITIES DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD., KOPPAL,
       R/O. KOPPAL.

2.    MARDANSAB S/O. JAMALSAB BENAKAL
      AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: TEMPORARY DALAYUTH,
      THE KARNATAKA MINORITIES
      DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD., KOPPAL,
      R/O. KINNAL, TQ and DIST: KOPPAL.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R1,
    SRI.AHAMED ALI RAHIMAN SHAH, ADV. FOR R2)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)(B) R/W
SEC 378(3) OF CR.P.C 1973, SEEKING THAT THE JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL ON 15.07.2011 IN SPL.CASE (P.C)
4/2006 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W
13(2) OF P.C.ACT 1988 AND U/S 8 OF THE PC ACT 1988 IN
FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY.
                               2




     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 10.08.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State-Lokayukta for

setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions

& Special Judge, Koppal dated 15.07.2011 and sought for

convicting the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter referred to as

'the P.C.Act' for short) and Section 8 of the P.C.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 factual matrix leading to the case are that,

the complainant Mehaboob Pasha has lodged a complaint

in Koppal Lokayukta Police Station as per Ex.P23 alleging

that he has studied upto SSLC and doing electrical work in

Koppal. He further asserted that, he had an intention to

open two wheeler service station and therefore, he has

submitted loan application to the Karnataka Minorities

Development Corporation Ltd. at Koppal to recommend his

loan application and to provide loan from the concerned

bank. His application was not recommended on two

occasions and on the third occasion, he has submitted an

application on 28.06.2005 and that he approached accused

No.1 to recommend his application for sanction of loan for

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that accused No.1

was the concerned clerk to put up the file and it is alleged

that he demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as a bribe and

Rs.500/- was paid. It is also alleged that the complainant

was not willing to pay the bribe and hence, on 22.10.2005

he approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged a

complaint. On the strength of the complaint, the FIR was

lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 7,

13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C.Act. Then the

investigating officer has secured two panchas and an

entrustment mahazar was drawn. The entrustment

mahazar is marked at Ex.P3. Then at about 4.30 p.m., the

trap was laid down and the complainant approached

accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 demanded

the bribe and when the complainant offered the same, it

was directed that it shall be paid to accused No.2, who was

temporary employee in the office. Accordingly, the

complainant has paid the amount to accused No.2 who

counted it and then the complainant came out and passed

a signal, as directed. In the meanwhile, accused No.2 is

alleged to have handed over the amount to accused No.1,

and meanwhile the trap was laid down and the hand wash

of both the accused was taken which has shown positive

for phenolphthalein test, but the amount was not traced

with the accused. However, the search in the office went

up to 9.00 p.m. and the amount was found in a file in the

records room and the same was also seized. Then a trap

mahazar as per Ex.P8 was also drawn and both the

accused were apprehended. Then investigating officer

returned to the office and both the accused were produced

before the special court. Subsequently, they were enlarged

on bail. Then the investigating officer continued the

investigation and after obtaining sanction and other

documents, he found that there is material evidence as

against the accused and submitted the charge sheet

against the accused. After submission of the charge sheet,

as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the

accused, the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the

alleged offences. The presence of the accused was secured

and they were enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers

were also furnished to them as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Then after hearing both the parties,

the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of

the P.C.Act is framed against accused No.1, while charge

under Section 8 of the P.C.Act is framed against accused

No.2 and the same is read over and explained to the

accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

4. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the

accused examined in all 12 witnesses and placed reliance

on 32 documents. Further, 27 material objects were also

marked. After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution,

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

is recorded to enable them 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 as well as

documentary evidence in support of their defence. Accused

No.1 has given an explanation that his duty was only to

place the applications received before the higher officers

and his written statement was obtained by the Lokayukta

officials by force. Then the learned Special Judge has

heard the arguments advanced by the learned SPP and the

defence counsel and framed following points:

i. Whether the prosecution proves that accused No.1 being a public servant, working as SDA in the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Ltd., Koppal the complainant Sri.Maheboob Pasha who filed his application to raise loan under self-employment Scheme and to recommend this application, A-1 demanded bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- out of which he has received Rs.500/- as an advance and on 12.10.2005 at about 4-45 p.m., when complainant came to his office to give balance bribe amount of Rs.2,500/-

as per the instructions of A-1 being the public servant demanded and accepted the bribe amount in presence of shadow witness CW--2 Mohd.Haroon Rasheed in his office as a gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act and thus A-1 has committed an offence punishable under section 7 P.C.Act, 1988?

ii. Whether the prosecution further proves that accused No.1 by holding office as public servant by corrupt or illegal means demanded and accepted above mentioned bribe amount and obtained the same for himself as a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as public servant and thus accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) P.C.Act, 1988?

iii. Whether the prosecution further proves that A-2 temporarily working as Dalayath in the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Ltd., Koppal, not being a public servant he on 22.10.2005 at about 4.15 p.m., while A-1 receiving this bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- as per the instructions of said A-1, A-2 has received this bribe amount and this A-2 has assisted the public servant/A-1, to take this bribe amount as a middleman and thus A-2 has committed an offence punishable u/s 8. P.C.Act, 1988?

iv. To what order?

5. After hearing the arguments and considering

the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the

learned Special Judge has found that the prosecution has

failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the accused of all

the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by this

judgment of acquittal, the State-Lokayukta has preferred

this appeal.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing

for the Lokayukta would contend that the judgment of

acquittal is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of

the case. He would also contend that though P.W.3-

complainant has turned hostile, he has admitted that he

has applied for loan and further his evidence discloses that

he had been to Lokayukta Office as well as office of the

accused on the date of the raid. He would also invite the

attention of the court to the evidence of P.W.2 who is a

shadow witness, who specifically deposed regarding

demand and acceptance. His evidence is corroborated with

the evidence of P.W.9 another mahazar witness and

P.W.11-Investigating Officer. He would further contend

that evidence of P.W.2 clearly establish that the accused

have demanded and accepted bribe for Rs.2,500/- and

there is a material corroboration to his evidence and

hostility of the complainant has no relevancy. He would

also contend that recovery of the amount is also

established and immediate statement given by the accused

establish that he did demanded and received the bribe

amount. He would also contend that complainant has

received Rs.2,500/- from Lokayukta subsequent to trap by

way of cheque and signature of the complainant on the

complaint is undisputed. Hence, it is evident that

complainant was won over and hence, he would contend

that there is sufficient material evidence to bring home the

guilt of the accused. Hence, he argued that the judgment

of the trial court is erroneous, illegal and capricious and it

calls for interference by this court and needs to be set

aside. Hence, he requests this court to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the

respondents/accused would contend that the prosecution

has not proved the acceptance of the bribe and the alleged

bribe amount was not recovered from the custody of the

accused. It is also evident that the evidence of the

prosecution is inconsistent regarding time of tracing the

amount in the file in a record room and the complainant

himself has denied the demand and acceptance on the part

of the accused. Hence, question of convicting the accused

does not arise at all. There is material inconsistency

regarding tracing of the amount and there is no

explanation from the prosecution as to when the trap was

laid down and how the amount was found in the record

room. No case is made out that the accused had gone to

visit the record room in this period. He would contend that

in fact the complainant himself has stated that he has

placed the amount in the file while returning and the

timings regarding recovery of the amount is not consistent

and mere the evidence of shadow-witness is not sufficient

as he was not in a position to hear the conversation.

Hence, they would contend that the trial court is justified

in acquitting the accused and as such, he prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, now the following point would arise for my

consideration:

Whether the trial court has committed an error in acquitting the accused/respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal calls for any interference by this court?

9. In the instant case, the allegations of the

prosecution is that accused No.1 is working as a clerk in

Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Ltd.,

Koppal and he is required to put up the file when

applications are received for loan. It is further case of the

prosecution that the complainant has moved two

applications, but his two applications were not considered

and third application was submitted on 28.05.2005 and

accused No.1 has demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe to put

up the file and received Rs.500/- in advance and on

22.10.2005, while receiving Rs.2,500/- he is alleged to

have been trapped. At the outset, it is to be noted here

that, amount was not recovered from the custody of the

accused. The amount was recovered from a file kept in a

record room. P.W.1 was the manager working in the

Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation, Ltd.,

Koppal and his evidence simply discloses that the

application received from the complainant was pending

with the accused and it was required to be forwarded to

the bank. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted

that accused has got only power to put up the file and he

has no power of sanction and sanctioning authority is the

Taluk Panchayat. P.W.2 is a shadow-witness who claims

that he accompanied the complainant during the trap. He

has deposed in accordance with the case of the

prosecution and he deposed regarding drawing

entrustment mahazar in the office, trap and apprehension

of the accused etc. He claimed that he was standing near

the window on the western side and he claimed that two

other persons were present along with the accused in his

chamber. He further deposed that the complainant

approached the accused and accused demanded the

amount and when the complainant offered it, accused No.1

directed to pay the amount to accused No.2. Then accused

No.1 secured tea to the complainant through accused No.2

and then complainant came out and passed a signal. He

has also deposed that accused No.2 handed over the

amount to accused No.1 and he has witnessed all these

aspects from a window. It is very difficult to accept his

version, since he was admittedly standing outside the

window. The prosecution has not established the height of

the window. However, if the angle is taken into

consideration, it is hard to accept his explanation and he

has gone to the extent of payment of amount by accused

No.2 to accused No.1 also. But when he has given so much

minute details, though he was outside the room, he is

unable to explain how the amount was placed in a file in

the record room. It is nobody's case that any of these

accused went to record room before the trap. No such case

is made out. His evidence does disclose that the hand

wash of the accused was taken and it has shown positive

to phenolphthalein test and it is again corroborated by the

report of the Forensic Lab.

10. The evidence of P.W.2 further discloses that

after trap, for two hours they have searched for the

amount, but the amount was not traced. Later on, he

found that it was concealed in a file in the record room and

he checked it and handed over to Lokayukta. When a

suggestion was made to this witness that after the trap

when the accused was apprehended, the written say of

accused No.1 was written as per the directions of the

Lokayukta Police and very interestingly, he did not deny

this aspect, but pleaded ignorance. The trap mahazar was

drawn from 9.00 p.m on 22.10.2005 to 00-30 hours on

23.10.2005. Hence, it is evident that it was extended till

midnight. Considering the fact that the amount was not

found in the custody of the accused and since there is no

evidence as to how the amount was placed in a record

room, the evidence given by this witness P.W.2 requires a

material corroboration.

11. P.W.3 is the complainant. In his evidence he

has deposed regarding applying the loan to Karnataka

Minorities Development Corporation, Ltd., but denied that

he lodged the complaint. He claimed that one Nazeer

Ahmed lead him to Lokayukta office and he dealt the

matter by obtaining his signature. He has specifically

stated in examination-in-chief in para 4 that accused has

not demanded and accepted any amount. In his

examination-in-chief in the fag end of page 4 in para 7, he

deposed that accused No.1 has reported him that he has

done his work and as such, he did not hand over the

amount to accused and while returning from there, he kept

it in a file bundle and then passed the signal. This part of

the examination-in-chief read as under:

"£À£Àß PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ°PÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ°¯Áè. gÀƪÀiï¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ §gÀĪÁUÀ CzÉà PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄƯÉAiÀÄ°ènÖzÀÝ ¥Éʯï PÀnÖzÀ §AqÀ¯ï M¼ÀUÀqÉ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÉÃ

ºÁQ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ §AzÉ£ÀÄ. ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÛçªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄRªÀ£ÀÄß Mj¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀAdÕAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉ£ÀÄ."

12. This witness was treated as hostile witness and

was cross-examined at length by the SPP appearing for the

Lokayukta, but nothing was elicited so as to impeach his

evidence. The evidence of shadow-witness P.W.2 is not

corroborated by the evidence of the complainant P.W.3.

13. P.W.4 is an Assistant Engineer, who has

deposed regarding drawing of sketch as per Ex.P25. P.W.5

is a constable and member of a raiding party. According to

him, he searched the amount in a file and reported the

matter to the investigating officer. According to him,

panchanama was started at 5.00 p.m. and continued up to

6.00 p.m. and then 3 hours it was stopped and again it

started at 9.00 p.m. and concluded at 00.30 hours.

14. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, it

is evident that their evidence is silent that immediately

after the raid, Lokayukta Police caught hold the hands of

the accused. Though in the cross-examination, P.W.2 has

deposed that the hands of the accused was held by the

Lokayukta Police, he did not disclose as to where exactly

his hands were held whether at the wrist or in the palm.

This evidence is missing. Further, neither P.W.2 nor P.W.5

have stated that after drawing the entrustment mahazar in

the Lokayukta office, they have washed their hands cleanly

by soap so as to avoid the traces of phenolphthalein in

their hands. This material evidence is also not available for

the prosecution. P.W.6 has simply deposed regarding

submission of the FIR and P.W.7 is the sanctioning officer.

P.W.8 is a photographer and he deposed regarding taking

photographs during their trap, but his evidence discloses

that he do not know what was in fact the transaction.

Further, his cross-examination also reveals that by using

negatives, photos can be manipulated and he further

admitted that whenever he takes out photographs, he

issues receipts, but regarding this transaction he has not

maintained any register. Hence, it creates a doubt and

negatives were also not produced in the instant case.

P.W.9 is a second pancha who has also deposed regarding

entrustment mahazar and trap etc. But his evidence also

silent to the effect that, after preparation of the

entrustment mahazar and before proceeding for trap, they

washed their hands cleanly by soap. Since no recovery is

made from the person of the accused, his evidence has no

much relevance.

15. P.W.10 has simply deposed regarding

submission of the charge sheet, but entire investigation is

done by P.W.11. P.W.11 has deposed regarding entire

transaction. Very interestingly, his evidence is also

completely silent to the effect that after drawing

entrustment mahazar, all the witnesses have washed their

hands cleanly. No such evidence is forthcoming. When

they had already handled phenolphthalein power while

drawing entrustment mahazar, if they did not wash their

hands and when they held the hands of the accused, quite

naturally the accused coming in contact with

phenolphthalein powder cannot be ruled out. This material

lapse is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, mere

sodium corbodinate hand wash of accused testing positive

to phenolphthalein test does not demonstrate the case of

the prosecution in any way. Very interestingly, in the

examination-in-chief, at page 6 in the middle, P.W.11 has

admitted that when they searched for the amount, evening

at 5.45 p.m., their police constable found it in a bundle

tied in a cloth kept in the record room. He is very specific

that amount was traced at 5.45 p.m. When a suggestion

was made to this witness in the cross-examination at page

12 in paragraph 13 that the amount was not traced till

9.00 p.m., he denied the said suggestion and asserted that

amount was traced at 5.45 p.m. But on perusal of Ex.P8

trap mahazar, at the end itself there is a specific reference

that the panchanama was started at 5.00 p.m. and

stopped at 6.00 p.m. and from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.

they searched the amount and when the amount was

found at 9.00 p.m., the mahazar was continued up to

midnight 00-30 hours. Hence, Ex.P8 clearly establish that

amount was traced at 9.00 p.m. and from 6.00 p.m. to

9.00 p.m., they have searched the entire office. But quite

interestingly, P.W.11-investigating officer all along

asserted that amount was found at 5.45 p.m. which is

contrary to the records produced by him. Further, this

witness P.W.11 deposed that when they trapped the

accused, nobody was found in his chamber, but P.W.2

specifically stated that two witnesses were present there.

In that event, investigating officer could have taken their

statement also in this regard, but that was also not done.

Hence, the evidence of the investigating officer also does

not corroborate the evidence of the shadow witness and

does not inspire the confidence of the court.

16. P.W.12 is also a member of the raiding party,

but his evidence does not help regarding demand and

acceptance. He has also investigated the matter partly, but

his evidence does not assist the prosecution in any way.

Further, it is important to note here that entrustment

mahazar Ex.P3 was concluded by 2.30 p.m. but the trap

was conducted at 5.00 p.m. and they went to the office at

4.30 p.m. Why there is a delay of two hours for laying the

trap is not explained. The investigating officer tried to

explain that it was lunch hour, but admittedly, lunch hour

was over by 2.00 p.m. and the entrustment mahazar itself

was concluded at 2.30 p.m.

17. The complainant has completely turned hostile

to the case of the prosecution and denied the demand and

acceptance at the first instance. Further, the amount was

not found in the custody of accused No.1 or accused No.2.

Apart from that, it is specific assertion by the prosecution

that, as per the direction of accused No.1, accused No.2

has received the amount and later handed over to accused

No.1. It is also alleged that accused No.2 was working on

temporary basis in the Karnataka Minorities Development

Corporation, Ltd, but there is no document produced to

show that accused No.2 was temporarily employed in the

office. This material evidence is also missing and the

complainant himself claims that he kept the amount in the

file kept in a bundle as he was directed to hand over the

amount to the accused. His contention is that accused did

not demand the amount and hence, he kept it in a file.

Further, the investigating officer has not taken any

precaution regarding washing of the hands by soap after

drawing entrustment mahazar. No doubt prima facie it is

evident that hand wash of accused Nos.1 and 2 has shown

positive to phenolphthalein test, but the evidence is short

as to how Lokayukta police held the hands of the accused

whether it is on the wrist or palm. When the hands of the

accused were held by Lokayukta police and since they

handled the phenolphthalein power and proceeded to raid

without washing their hands, possibility of the accused

coming in contact with the traces of phenolphthalein power

cannot be ruled out. Though the arguments regarding

sanction was advanced, that is not a relevant factor.

Hence, the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire

the confidence of the court regarding demand and

acceptance and recovery of the amount from the custody

of the accused.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant placed

reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Mrs. Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt.of NCT of

Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.1669/2009. The facts

and circumstances of the said case are entirely different

and in the said case, the amount was recovered from the

custody of the accused, but it is missing in the instant

case. Hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable

to the case in hand.

19. Learned counsel for the accused has placed

reliance on the following decisions:

    i.          N.Vijaya Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

                reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687.

    ii.         P.Satyanbarayana Murthy Vs Dist. Inspector of

Police, State of AP reported in (2015) 10 SCC

iii. B.Jaya Raj Vs. State of Andhrapradesh

reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55.

iv. Meena Vs State of Maharashtra reported in

(2005) 5 SCC 21.

v. V.Sejappa Vs State by Police Inspector

Lokayukta, Chitradurga reported in (2016) 12

SCC 150.

vi. State of Punjab Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma

reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153.

vii. Rakesh Kapoor Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

reported in (2012) 13 SCC 552.

viii. V.Venkat Subbarao Vs State Rep. by Inspector

of Police, AP reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305.

20. The principles enunciated in the above cited

decisions clearly establish that, mere recovery of tainted

amount does not establish the case and in the instant

case, there is no recovery from the custody of the accused.

The evidence is also fall short of demand and acceptance.

The evidence of shadow witnesses is not corroborated by

the other material evidence and the evidence regarding

tracing the amount in the record room and time of tracing

is inconsistent, as investigating officer states one time and

the witnesses speak of different time. Hence, in view of the

principles enunciated in the above cited decisions referred

by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused, it is

evident that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring

home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Even the prosecution has not produced any document to

prove the employment of accused No.2 on temporary

basis. Further, the allegation is that as per the instruction

of accused No.1, accused No.2 has received the amount,

but the employment of accused No.2 itself is not

established. Further, immediately after passing the signal,

the trap was conducted and there was no breathing time

and complainant and shadow witnesses were alleged to be

watching accused No.1. It is not the case of the

prosecution that in between, the accused No.1 left the

chamber and went to record room. It is also not the case

of the prosecution that accused No.2 went to record room.

Then it is for the prosecution to explain how the amount

was found in a record room in a file. All these anomalies

are not explained by the prosecution. Hence, the evidence

on record clearly establish that the prosecution has

miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has

appreciated oral and documentary evidence in detail by

analyzing the same and arrived at a just decision. As such,

considering these facts and circumstances, I answer the

point under consideration in the negative and proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBS/-