[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anil S/O Bhimasi Mannikeri @ Kolakar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
CRL.A No. 200167 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200167 OF 2022
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ANIL S/O BHIMASI MANNIKERI @ KOLAKAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SHO.,
Digitally signed
BABALESHWAR PS.,
by RAMESH REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MATHAPATI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. VICTIM R/O BY HER MOTHER/COMPLAINANT
SMT. BIKIJAN W/O HAZARTSAB KHIJI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MAMADAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP OF R1;
SRI. MOINAKHTAR NADAF ADV., FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
CRL.A No. 200167 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC. 415 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO I) ADMIT THIS
APPEAL; II) CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT;
III) AFTER HEARING ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
22.07.2022 AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 26.07.2022
PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.29/2018 BY THE
HONOURABLE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I (POCSO),
VIJAYAPURA CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S.363, 376(2)(n) IPC ALONG WITH S. 6 OF
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF ALL THE ABOVE NOTED CHARGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Special
Court-I, Vijayapura, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 29/2018
dated 26.07.2022.
2. The parties are referred to by the same rank
they had before the trial Court for convenience.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as
follows:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
The Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Circle,
Vijayapura, laid a charge sheet against the accused for the
commission of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the
IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on
15.01.2018 at about 2:00 p.m., the accused, with an
intention to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl,
knowing fully well that she is a minor, visited the house of
the victim girl and took her to the land and committed
rape and penetrative sexual assault on her. On
11.06.2018 at about 6:00 p.m., when the victim girl was
returning from school, the accused induced her and
kidnapped her on his motorcycle, took her to Bagalkot,
then to Ratnagiri by bus, and kept her in a shed where he
committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on her.
Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences.
5. The accused was arrested on 16.06.2018 and
remanded to judicial custody. Since the date of his arrest,
the accused has been in judicial custody.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
6. After hearing the charges, the trial Court
framed the charges against the accused for the alleged
commission of offences, which were read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same,
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and
marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and Ex.P31(a). Six
material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 6.
8. After the closure of the prosecution's evidence,
the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was
recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to
lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under
Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act and passed a sentence of 10 years of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 6(1)
of the POCSO Act, 2012, with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The
accused was sentenced to 3 years for the offence under
Section 363 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 6,000/-. Being
aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the prosecution has failed to produce the
relevant documents to prove the age of the victim as
required under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection) Act, 2015. The prosecution has produced
Exhibit P23 issued by the Senior Teacher of Government
Junior College. Even the Investigating Officer has not
produced the school admission register extract.
Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
victim was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act
as on the date of commission of the offence.
11. Further, he would submit that the trial Court
has failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
law and facts. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove
the alleged commission of offences, and sought for allow
this appeal.
12. As against this, the learned HCGP would submit
that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely,
there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by
the trial Court, and he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
perused the materials placed before this Court, the
following points arise for my consideration:
i. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the victim was a child as
defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act as
on the date of commission of the offence?
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
ii. Whether the trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused for the commission of the
offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012?
iii. Whether the trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused for the offences under
Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860?
iv. What order?
14. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1: In the negative.
Point No. 2: In the negative.
Point No. 3: In the negative.
Point No. 4: As per the final order.
15. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. The genesis of this case arises from the
complaint, which stated that the age of the victim was 15
years. To substantiate the same, the prosecution produced
Exhibit P23, the Caste and Birth Certificate issued by the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
Head Master, Higher Primary School, Mamadapur, which
reveals that the date of birth of the victim was 04.06.2004
as per Exhibit P23. Exhibit P22 is the Admission Register
Extract issued by the Head Master, Higher Primary School
Section, Mamadapur. The author of Exhibit P22, i.e., the
Head Master, Higher Primary School Section, Mamadapur,
has not been examined before this Court.
16. To substantiate the contents of Exhibit P23, the
prosecution examined PW14, Raghavendra H. Purohit,
Headmaster of Karnataka Public School, who deposed
regarding the issuance of Exhibits P22 and P23. During his
cross-examination, he clearly admitted that at the time of
admission, they receive the birth certificate of the student.
Further, he admitted that he has not produced the birth
certificate of the victim.
17. The Investigating Officer has not produced the
documents from the concerned school authorities at the
time of admission to the first standard. The Investigating
Officer has not explained anything with regard to non-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
production of Birth Certificate or Ossification Test
Certificate as required under Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The
Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to determine
the age of the victim as required under Section 34 of
POCSO Act, 2012. The Medical Officer has also not
complied the mandatory provisions of Section 164A of
Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the age of the
accused. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution has
failed to produce relevant documents to prove the age of
the victim. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove
that the victim was child as defined under Section 2(d) of
POCSO Act 2012. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
18. Point No.2: When the prosecution has failed to
prove that the victim was child as defined under Section
2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012 as on the date of commission of
offence, the question of committing offence under the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
penal provisions of POCSO Act does not arise. Accordingly,
I answer point No.2 in the negative.
19. Point No.3: With regard to offence under
Section 363 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution has not
placed any materials to prove the essential ingredients of
Section 363 of IPC. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt for the offence under Section 363 of IPC.
20. With regard to the offence under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC is concerned, in the complaint at Ex.P1
the victim has stated as under:
" ಾನು ೕ ಾನ ಗಂಡ ಹಜರತ ಾಬ ೕ . ವಯಸು 35 ವಷ :
eÁw ªÀÄĹèªÀiï ಉ ೊ ೕಗ ಮ ೆ "ೆಲಸ $ಾ: ಮಮ ಾಪ&ರ, ಗಣ(ೕಕರಣ
*ಾ+,"ೊಡುವ -.ಾ / / ಾಂಕ 12-6-2018.
ನನ0 ತವರು ಮ ೆ "ಾಖಂಡ( ಇದು4 ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ ಮಮ ಾಪ&ರ
ಇರುತ5 ೆ. ನನ0 ಗಂಡ 6ೕ7"ೊಂ+ದು4, ನನ8ೆ 4 ಜನ ಮಕ9:ಾದ 1]
;ಾರುಖ<ಾನ. 2) ೋನು. 3) ಾ=.ಾ. 4) ಅಬುಸು?.ಾನ. ಈ
ಪA"ಾರ ಮಕ9Bದು4, ಮ ೆಯCD ಾನು ಸದರ ನನ0 ಮಕ9ಳF ಮತು5 ನನ0 ಅ$ೆ5,
ೈಬುನ , *ಾವ ಮ;ಾಕ ಾಬ ೕ ಎಲDರೂ ಕೂ+ Iಾ,ಸು$ಾ5
ಬಂ/ರು$ೆ5ೕIೆ. ನನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ವ.ಾ. 15 ವಷ ಇವಳF 9 ೇ
ತರಗ6ಯCD ;ಾJೆ ಕCಯು$ಾ5: ೆ - ಾನು ನನ0 ಮಕ9ಳF 1] ;ಾರುಖ<ಾನ,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
2) ಾ=.ಾ, 3] ಅಬುಸು?.ಾನ, ಕೂ+ ರಮKಾನ ಹಬLದ ಸಲುIಾM
ನನ0 ತವರು ಮ ೆ "ಾಖಂಡ(8ೆ KೋM ೆ4ೕವN. ನನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ಇವಳF
ಮಮ ಾಪ&ರದ ನಮO ಮ ೆಯCD ನನ0 ಅ$ೆ5. *ಾವ ಇವPೊಂ/8ೆ
ಇರು65ದ4ಳF.
= ೆ0 / ಾಂಕ 11-6-2018 ರಂದು Pಾ6A 9-00 ಗಂQೆಯ
ಸು*ಾರ"ೆ9 ಾನು ನನ0 ತವರು ಮ ೆ "ಾಖಂಡ(ಯCD ಾ4ಗ ನನ0 ದೂ7ನ
ಸಂಬಂRಕ 1) ದಸ5Mೕರ ಾಬ ತಂ ೆ Kಾ ಾಬ "ಾ ೆ ಮತು5 2) ಕPೆಪS
ತಂ ೆ ಮಲDಪS ವಗTರ ಾ: ಮಮ ಾಪ&ರ ಇವರು ನಮO ಮ ೆ8ೆ ಬಂದು,
ದಸ5Mೕರ ಾಬ ಇವನು ನನ0 ಮುಂ ೆ ಾನು ಮತು5 =ನ0 Uೖದುನ
ಹು ೇನ ಾಬ ೕ ಕೂ+ ಮಲDಪS ಗಂಗೂರ ಇವರ Kೊಲದ ಹ65ರ ಗ:ೆ
"ೆಲಸ"ೆ9 Kೋ ಾಗ ಾಯಂ"ಾಲ 6-00 ಗಂQೆಯ ಸು*ಾರ"ೆ9 =ನ0 ಮಗಳF
ೋನು ಇವಳF ;ಾJೆVಂದ ಬರುIಾಗ ಅವB8ೆ 1] ಅ=ೕಲ ತಂ ೆ Wೕಮ,
ಮXY"ೇ7. ಇವನು Zೕಟರ ೈಕ\ ನಂ. "ೆಎ-28/ಇKೆ]-9891 ಇದರ
UೕJೆ =ನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ಇವB8ೆ ಒ$ಾ5ಯಪ&ವ ಕIಾM ಅ=ೕಲನ ತಂ ೆ
Wೕಮ, ಮX"ೇ7, ತಮO ಸು=ೕಲ ಮತು5 ಾಬು ಇವರು Zೕಟರ ೈಕ\
UೕJೆ ಹ65, =ನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ಇವB8ೆ ಅಪಹ7,"ೊಂಡು
KೋMರು$ಾ5Pೆ ಅಂ$ಾ KೇBದು4 "ೇB 8ಾಬ7.ಾM ಾನು ಮತು5 1)
ನ ಾಬ ಮ;ಾಕ ಾಬ ೕ . 2) ರ?ೕಕ ನIಾಜ ಾಬ ೕ , 3]
_ೈಗಂಬರ ನ ಾಬ ೕ ಮತು5 4] ದಸ5Mೕರ ಾಬ Kಾ ಾಬ "ಾ ೆ ಾ:
ಮಮ ಾಪ&ರ ಇವPೆಲDರೂ ಕೂ+ ಸದರ ನನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ಇವB8ೆ
ಮತು5 ಅವB8ೆ Zೕಟರ ೈಕ\ UೕJೆ ಅಪಹ7,"ೊಂಡು Kೋದ ಅ=ೕಲ
ಮXY"ೇ7 ಇವ78ೆ ಇCDಯ ವPೆ8ೆ ಹುಡು"ಾ+ದರು ,(9ರುವ/ಲD.
ಅ=ೕಲ ಮXY"ೇ7 ಮತು5 ಅವನ ತಂ ೆ Wೕಮ, ಮXY"ೇ7. ತಮO
ಸು=ೕಲ ಮತು5 ಾಬು ಮXY"ೇ7 ಇವರು ನನ0 ಮಗಳF ೋನು ಇವB8ೆ
.ಾವN ೋ ದುರು ೆ4ೕಶ/ಂದ ಅವಳF ;ಾJೆVಂದ ಮ ೆ8ೆ ನaೆದು"ೊಂಡು
ಬರು65 ಾ4ಗ ಅವB8ೆ ಒ$ಾ5ಯ*ಾ+ ಅಪಹ7,"ೊಂಡು KೋMದು4 ಅವರ
UೕJೆ "ಾನೂನು ಕAಮ"ಾ9M ನನ0ದು ?.ಾ / ಇರುತ5 ೆ.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
21. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Babaleshwara has registered the case
in Crime No.151/2018 at Ex.P.27 for the offence
punishable under Section 363 of IPC against accused
No.1-Anil S/o: Bhimasi Mannikeri, accused No.2-Bhimasi
Mannikeri, accused No.3-Sunil S/o: Bhimasi Mannikeri
and accused No.4-Sab S/o: Bhimasi Mannikeri. After
investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the
charge sheet against only one accused i.e., the appellant
herein. The, Investigating Officer has not submitted the
charge sheet with regard to other accused. In the charge
sheet, it is stated that rest of the accused were not
present on the place of crime. Hence, Investigating Officer
has dropped the case against the other accused. In Ex.P2,
the victim has stated as under:
"ನಮO ಜbೕನದ cಾಜು ಅ=ೕಲ ತಂ ೆ Wೕಮd ಮXY"ೇ7 "ೋಲ"ಾರ
ವಯ: 22 ವಷ ಇವರ ಜbೕನ ಇದು4 ಅ=ೕಲನು ನಮO ಮ ೆ8ೆ ಬಂದು
Kೋಗುವದು *ಾಡು65ದ4ನು ಮತು5 ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯವರು ನಮO ಮ ೆಯವPೊಂ/8ೆ
ಪ7ಚಯfತು5. ಅ=ೕಲನು ಕ:ೆದ ವಷ /ಂದ ನನ8ೆ -Aೕ6ಸು$ೆ5ೕ ೆ ಾfಬLರೂ
ಎCD.ಾದರೂ ದೂರ KೋM ಇPೋಣ. =ನ8ೆ ತುಂcಾ gೆ ಾ0M ೋ+"ೊಳFh$ೆ5ೕ ೆ
ಅಂತ KೇB ಮನiC, ಪNಸJಾVಸು$ಾ5 ಬಂ/ದ4ನು."
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
22. The statement of victim has been recorded by
the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
wherein she stated as under:
" ಾನು ಇ ೇ ವಷ ಜೂj-12 ೇ $ಾ7ೕ ನಂದು ಾಯಂ"ಾಲ 5-00
ಗಂQೆ8ೆ ಏ ೋ ;ಾJೆVಂದ ಬರು65ರುIಾಗ ಾ7ಯCD ನಮO ಮ ೆಯ ಮಗTCನCD
ಇರುವ ಅ=ೕಲ ಅವರ ಅಣY ಮತು5 ಅವರ ತಂ ೆ Zೕಟl ೈಕ\ =CD,"ೊಂಡು
=ಂ6ದ4ರು. ಾನು ಅವರ ಹ65ರ ಾm Kೋಗು65ರುIಾಗ ಅವರು ಕರವಸn/ಂದ
ಾ+ಸದಂ$ಾVತು. ಅದ7ಂದ ಾನು ಅವರ oಂ ೆ Kೋ ೆ. ಆಗ ಅ=ೕಲ ನನ0ನು0
Zೕಟl ೈಕ\ UೕJೆ ಕೂ7,"ೊಂಡು cಾಗಲ"ೋQೆ8ೆ ಕPೆದು"ೊಂಡು Kೋದ.
cಾಗಲ"ೋQೆಯCD 8ಾ+ =CD, ಬ, ನCD ನನ0ನು0 ರ$ಾ0M78ೆ ಕPೆದು"ೊಂಡು
Kೋದ. ರ$ಾ0M7ಯCD ಅ=ೕಲ ಅವರ ಅ$ೆ5 ಮ ೆ8ೆ ಕPೆದು"ೊಂಡು Kೋದ. ಅCD
ನನ0ನು0 ಮದುIೆ ಆಗು ಅಂ$ಾ "ೇBದ4. ಆದPೆ ಾನು ಆಗುವN/ಲD ಅಂ$ಾ KೇB ೆ.
ಆಗ ನನ0ನು0 Pೇq *ಾ+ರು$ಾ5 ೆ."
23. In Ex.P16-MLC Register, it is stated that no
injuries WD present and the history of sexual assault is
stated as under:
"History given by victim and mother, I was
knowing nil Bhimsi Mannikeri, Aged 22 yrs since one
year, since he was my neighbour. During this 01
year I had 5-6 physical contact with him with my
willingness in his field.
I am studying in 09th std in Govt. High School
Mamadapur, on 11.06.2018 when I was returning
from school at 04.30PM. Anil met me on the way and
told me to climb the bike. We both together went to
Bagalkot on bike and reached Bagalkot at night
08.00PM, from there, he parked the bike in Bus-
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
stand, we caught a bus went to Belgaum at around
02.00AM 12.06.2018. There we took another bus
and went to a place which I don't know 04.00AM
12.06.2018.
Then we caught another bus and went a place
which again I don't know. At 11.00AM 12.06.2018
there at around 01.30PM we caught a bus to
Ratangiri and reached there at 08.00 p.m. on
12.06.2018
There we stayed in Anil's ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀvÉÛ house. We
had physical contact on that day on my own
willingness. Then on 13.06.2018 night we had last
contact in the same house.
On 14.06.2018 06.30AM police came and
brought us back to Babaleshwar PS at around 02.00
p.m."
24. The victim was examined on 24.02.2020. On
that day, the cross examination of the victim was taken as
'NIL'. The Order sheet dated 24.02.2020 reveals that on
the date of recording the evidence of PW2, the accused
was absent and the exemption application was filed and
the same was allowed. The application was filed under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C., on 29.11.2021 to recall PWs.1 to
PW.4 and PW.5 to PW10 and the same came to be
rejected on 06.01.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order
passed by the trial Court, the accused had preferred
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
petition in Criminal Petition No.200334/2022 which came
to be allowed vide order dated 27.05.2022.
25. The summons was issued to PW.2, same was
returned with postal shara "victim girl died on
14.09.2021". The recalling application was filed under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C on 29.11.2021. The victim died on
14.09.2021. Though the victim was died on 14.09.2021,
the learned counsel for accused nor the learned public
prosecutor did not brought to the notice of this Court with
regard to the death of the victim. Hence, the accused has
not cross-examined by PW.2. The evidence placed by the
prosecution itself reveals that the alleged sexual
intercourse between the accused and the victim is
consensual sex. Therefore, absolutely there are no
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the
commission of offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. The
history of the victim with regard to the alleged sexual
intercourse itself reveals that the victim voluntarily had
sexual intercourse with the accused without any force.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent,
convincing, clinching, trustworthy evidence to prove the
essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC. The trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and
perceptive manner. Hence, the trial Court is not justified in
convicting the accused for the alleged commission of
offence under Section 363 and 376(2)(n) of IPC.
Accordingly, I answer point No.3 in the negative.
26. Point No.4: For the aforesaid reasons and
discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated
22.07.2022 and order of sentence dated
26.07.2022 passed in Special Case (POCSO)
No.29/2018 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I,
Vijayapura, is hereby set aside.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3078
HC-KAR
iii) The appellant/accused is acquitted for the
offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of
IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
iv) The Registry to communicate the order to
the concerned jail authority to release the
accused, if he is not involved in any other
case;
Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with
trial Court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MSR,TIN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
CT-BH
