[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs S. Devaprasad on 27 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.798 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
STATE BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1. S. DEVAPRASAD,
S/O. LATE. K. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SURVEY SUPERVISOR,
TALUK OFFICE, LAND SURVEY DEPARTMENT,
RAMANAGARA.
2. K. B. RAJANIKANTH
S/O. BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
LICENCED (PRIVATE) SURVEYOR,
TALUK OFFICE, LAND SURVEY DEPARTMENT,
RAMANAGARA.
3. MADAIAH,
S/O LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FIRST GRADE SURVEYOR,
TALUK OFFICE, LAND SURVEY DEPARTMENT,
RAMANAGARA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. L. SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. NARAYAN MAYYAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV. FOR R2,
SRI. A. N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R3.)
-2-
CRL.A No.798 of 2021
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE
SPL.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ACQUITTAL
ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN
SPL.C.NO.6/2009.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Special Case No.6/2009
dated 16.08.2019.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Ramanagara laid a charge-
sheet against accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable
under Section 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, accused
Nos.1 and 3 are the public servants working as Survey
Supervisor and First Grade Surveyor respectively in
Ramanagara Taluk Office and accused No.1 demanded
illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from CW1-Puttamallaiah
on 18.05.2006 for showing official favour i.e. issuing
survey sketch in respect of land bearing Survey No.311 of
Vibhuthikere and in furtherance of the same, accused No.3
accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- on
13.05.2006 in the Survey Department, Ramanagara Office
from CW1 on behalf of accused No.1 as a motive or
reward to show the official favour without any public
interest and thereby committed criminal misconduct under
Section 13(1)(d) and is guilty of the offence under
Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Accused No.2 being the Licensed (Private)
Surveyor working in Ramanagara Taluk Office on
31.05.2006 demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.1,300/- from CW1-Puttamallaiah in order to show
official favour in the matter of issuing the survey sketch
and thereby committed the offence under Section 8 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court has framed the charges against the accused for
the alleged offences and same were read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same,
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
has examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8. 32 documents
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P32. 18 material objects
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P18. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused have totally denied the
incriminating materials available on record. The accused
have not led any defence evidence on their behalf.
However, Exhibit D1 is marked at the time of cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged
commission of offences. Being aggrieved by the judgment
of acquittal, the appellant/State has preferred this appeal.
Submission of learned Counsel on behalf of the
appellants:
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that, the impugned judgment is opposed to law
and facts of the case. Same is contrary to the material
evidence on record. The trial Court proceeded to acquit
the accused by taking the view that application filed by the
complainant is not produced by the prosecution while it
was seized along with other documents by PW7. The trial
Court has erred in acquitting the accused by disregarding
the fact that accused demanded illegal gratification and
the tainted cash was recovered from the accused. The trial
Court has not properly appreciated the document given by
the accused at the time of conducting trap panchanama.
The trial Court acquitted the accused for giving undue
importance to the minor contradictions in the evidence of
the witnesses, while all of them have supported the case
of the prosecution, touching the demand and acceptance
of bribe and pendency of work of the complainant on the
day of trap.
10. To substantiate the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel has relied on
the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mrs. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2019)14 SCC 311; P.Somaraju v. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1040,
State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v.
C.B.Nagaraj reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620.
Submissions of learned counsel on behalf of the
Respondent:
11. As against this learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts and absolutely that there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and
hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate
his argument, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy v.
District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh
and Another reported in (2015)10 SCC 152 and
Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar and Others reported
in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1252.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration.
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in
acquitting the accused for the offence under
Sections 7, 8, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act?
2. What Order?
13. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Reasons:
14. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA
SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and 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:
"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 the evidence on record was that the guilt of
the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt
and no other conclusion was possible."
15. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS (supra) it is 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. The same are:
"1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material evidence
on record; and
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."
- 10 -
16. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that, accused
Nos.1 and 3 are the public servants working as Survey
Supervisor and First Grade Surveyor respectively, in
Ramanagara Taluk Office. Accused No.1 demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.1,000/- from CW1-Puttamallaiah on
18.05.2006 for showing official favour i.e. issuing survey
sketch in respect of land bearing Survey No.311 of
Vibhuthikere and in furtherance of the same, accused No.3
accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- on
13.05.2006 in the Survey Department, Ramanagara Office
from CW1 on behalf of accused No.1 as a motive or
reward to show the official favour, without any public
interest and thereby committed criminal misconduct under
Section 13(1)(d) and guilty of the offence under Sections
7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
17. Further, accused No.2 being the Licensed
Private Surveyor working in Ramanagara Taluk Office on
31.05.2006 demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.1,300/- from CW1-Puttamallaiah in order to show
- 11 -
official favour in the matter of issuing the survey sketch
and thereby committed the offence under Section 8 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the alleged
commission of offences.
18. To prove the case of the prosecution, CW1-
Puttamallaiah-complainant examined as PW1. PW1 has not
supported to the case of the prosecution. He has clearly
deposed that he do not know the contents of Exhibit P1.
This witness was treated as hostile witness with the
permission of the Court has been cross-examined. Even in
his cross-examination, the prosecution has not elicited any
favourable answers from him to substantiate the case of
the prosecution.
19. P.W.2-Sri Venkateshaiah, working as First
Division Assistant in Town Planning Office, Bengaluru.
Witness stated that he was summoned to the Lokayuktha
Police Station on 31.05.2006 at 10.30 a.m. and when he
went there, P.W.1-Puttamallaiah, another witness-
Basavaraju and Lokayuktha police officials were present.
He came to know that PW1 had filed an application for
- 12 -
surveying his land, but the officials in survey section are
demanding bribe for surveying the land. PW1 confirmed
this fact and also confirmed filing of the First Information.
Subsequently, PW1 produced Rs.2,300/- which were
subsequently smeared with phenolphthalein powder after
their denomination and serial numbers were noted in a
paper. The said documents are marked as Exs.P.10 and
11. The phenolphthalein powder smeared currency notes
were given to the witness-Basavaraju, who confirmed the
said currency notes after tallying with Ex.P.10 and kept in
the pant packet of PW1. The hands of Basavaraju were
washed in sodium carbonate concentrate which turned into
light pink colour, which was seized. Necessary instructions
were given to him and PW1 to go and meet the Accused
and to pay the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes on
demand by the Accused. The pre-trap panchanama is as
per Ex.P2.
20. Witness stated that on the same day at 11.30
am, all of them went to the Ramanagara Survey Office,
parked the vehicle about 800 feet away from the Survey
- 13 -
Office. Witness stated that he along with PW1 went inside
the office and PW1 met Survey Supervisor-accused No.3.
This witness has not identified Accused No.1. Accused
No.2 came to the office at 3.45 p.m. P.W.1 asked for his
survey sketch and Accused No.2 demanded the bribe
amount. PW1 paid Rs.1,300/- powder smeared currency
notes. Accused No.2 accepted the same and kept in his
pant pocket. Accused No.2 also insisted for payment of
Rs.1,000/- to the Survey Supervisor and accordingly, PW1
tendered the amount to Accused No.3, who accepted the
same and kept in the table drawer. PW1 gave signal to
Lokayukta Police, who were standing outside and
immediately, they came inside and introduced themselves.
The hands of Accused 2 and 3 were separately washed in
the Sodium Carbonate concentrate and the concentrate
turned into light pink colour, which were siezed in the
presence of the witnesses. The police have seized the
currency notes found in the drawer of the Accused No.3
and also wiped the place with cotton. The said cotton
when washed in Sodium Carbonate concentrate, also
turned into pink colour, which was also seized by the
- 14 -
police. The bribe amount paid to Accused No.2 was
produced by him, which was also seized by the police.
The pant pocket portion was washed in Sodium Carbonate
concentrate which had also turned into pink colour. The
documents pertaining to PW1 were seized by the police
and a trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3. The
documents relating to PW1 which were seized from the
Office of the Tahasildar is as per Ex.P12. They have
returned to the Lokayukta Police Station at 9.30 p.m.
21. Though this witness, by and large supported the
case of the prosecution, deviated to some extent from his
statement before the police. Therefore, he was treated as
partially hostile witness and cross-examined by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor. Even in his cross-
examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, he
has denied the suggestion that the hands of accused 2 and
3 were also washed in the sodium carbonate concentrate
to evidence the acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-
and Rs.1,300/-. Further, he has admitted that, all the
- 15 -
accused have given their explanation to the Investigating
Officer as per Exhibit P13 to 15.
22. PW3-Basavaraju, 2nd pancha fully supported the
case of the prosecution in the matter of procedures and
drawing up of pre-trap and post-trap panchanama and
seizure of the materials.
23. PW4-Ramanna, who was working as Junior
Engineer in PWD, Ramanagara, has deposed in his
evidence that, at the request of Lokayukta Police, he drew
the sketch of scene of offence as per directions of his
higher officer. On 27.06.2006 also he has deposed as to
the issuance of rough sketch prepared by him as per
Exhibit P21.
24. PW5-Sri. Rajeev Chawla, who was working as a
Commissioner in Survey Settlement and Land Records,
has deposed as to the sanction to prosecute the accused 1
and 3 as per Exhibit P22.
- 16 -
25. PW6-Sri.Mahadevaiah, Police Inspector and
PW7-Mahammed Jaffer, Police Inspector have deposed as
to their respective investigation.
26. PW8-Manjappa has deposed as to his
investigation.
27. I have carefully examined the materials on
record and perused the impugned judgment. The trial
Court, at paragraphs 61 to 74, has observed as follows:
"61. Specific contention of the prosecution is that
Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the Public Servants working as
Survey Supervisor and First Grade Surveyor in the Survey
Section of the office of Tahasildar, Ramanagara and
Accused No.2 is the Licensed (Private) Surveyor, working
in the said office. This fact is not in dispute.
62. It is the further contention of the prosecution
that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have demanded bribe of
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,300/- respectively by the Informant
for ordering to issue the survey sketch and for prearing
the survey sketch by them respectively, which was denied
by the Accused. It is the contention of the prosecution
that Accused No.1 accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.1,000/- through Accused No.3, whereas Accused No.2
accepted Rs.1,300/- directly from the Informant to show
the official favour. This fact is also denied by the Accused.
- 17 -
63. P.W.1 - the First Informant has not
supported the case of the prosecution and he has
completely turned hostile. Even during cross-examination
by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, nothing has
been elicited from him except the denial of the
suggestion. This witness denied that he had produced the
cash of Rs.2,300/- before the Lokayuktha Police or that
he had received the said amount through cheque from
Lokayuktha Office.
64. During cross-examination, this witness states
that the Surveyor had surveyed his land on the basis of
his application on 20.05.2006 itself, but denied the
suggestion that he had obtained the copy of the survey
sketch on 22.05.2006.
65. P.W.2 - Sri.Venkateshaiah is the shadow
witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
But he could not identify Accused No.1. However, there is
no dispute regarding the identification of the Accused
Nos. 1 to 3 and further the incident alleged is of the year
2006 and this witness was examined during 2018.
Therefore naturally the witness may find it difficult to
identify the Accused.
66. Regarding the material facts by and large,
the witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
But since he could not eloborately states the lengthy
procedure that was followed by the Investigating Officer
during the pre-trap and trap mahazar, witness was
partially treated hostile and during cross-examination, he
supported the case and stated that since several years
have lapsed, he does not remember all the minute
details.
- 18 -
67. In view of the fact that the date of the
incident as per the case made out is on 31.05.2006 and
since the prosecution witnesses were examined during
2018, there will be natural inconsistencies in the oral
evidence that will be led by the prosecution. I deem it
proper to ignore simple contradictions and omissions in
the evidence of the witnesses, who were made to depose
after long lapse of more than 12 years. However, it has to
be looked into as to whether the prosecution is successful
in proving the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as contended
by them beyond reasonable doubt.
68. It is the requirement of Sec.7 and 8 of
Prevention of Corruption Act that there must be demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification to do or favour to
do any official act or in the exercise of official function or
to show official favour. It is the well settled proposition of
law that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that
some official function was pending with the Accused as on
the date of complaint.
69. In the present case, according to the case
made out, the Informant P.W.1 had filed an application to
survey his land, to the survey section in the Taluk Office,
Ramanagara. The said application is said to have been
dated 16.05.2006. The said application is not placed
before the Court. Ex.P.12 is said to be the set of
documents siezed from the office of the Accused on the
date of incident. As per these records and also as per the
evidence of P.W.1, the land belong to P.W.1 was surveyed
by P.W.2 and survey sketch along with the report and
form No.5 were prepared. Of course, these documents do
not contain the date on which the documents were
prepared by Accused No.2. P.W.1 in his evidence
- 19 -
specifically admits that Accused No.2 had surveyed his
land on 20.05.2006 and had obtained his signature for
having properly surveyed the land and the documents are
as per Ex.D.1. There is absolutely no dispute regarding
Ex.P.12 , the documents said to have been seized from
the Office of Tahasildar.
70. One of the register which is part of Ex.P.12
discloses that P.W.1 - Puttamallaiah had applied for
survey sketch on 16.05.2006 and he had obtained the
sketch on 22.05.2006. The prosecution has not placed
any explanation as to how it can constitute an offence
against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 when the survey sketch
applied by P.W.1 was already issued on 22.05.2006 itself
and why P.W.1 should approach either A.1 or A.2 after
obtaining the survey sketch. There is absolutely no
explanation by the prosecution about this document. Of
course, P.W.2 states during his evidence that the said
endorsement found in Ex.P.12 was not there when he
signed the original documents. But it is the contention of
the prosecution that the original documents were copied
and signatures of the witnesses were taken to the copies.
Thereafter the original documents were entrusted to a
responsible officer in Taluk Office and the attested copies
of the documents i.e. Ex.P.12 was in the custody of the
Investigating Officer through out. When that is the
situation, the prosecution was required to explain as to
how that endorsement of P.W.1 could find a place to the
effect that he had received the survey sketch on
22.05.2006 itself and still he can lodge the First
Information as per Ex.P.1 on 31.05.2006. When no official
work was pending with Accused Nos. 1 to 3 relating to
P.W.1, there was no question of either demanding,
- 20 -
paying/accepting the bribe amount by the Accused. The
prosecution has failed to establish this material event to
seek conviction of the Accused Nos.1 to 3.
71. It is also pertinent to note here that even
according to the case made out by the prosecution, the
original records, copy of which is before the Court as per
Ex.P.12, were not recovered from the custody of either
Accused No.1, 2 or 3. On the other hand, the original
document was in the custody of the Sheristedar -
Sri.Shivamurthy. Under such circumstances, it is hard to
believe that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 can either demand or
accept the bribe amount from P.W.1 or I do not see any
reason for P.W.1 to go and pay the bribe amount to these
Accused, when no official work was pending with them.
72. It is the contention of the prosecution that
the trap was held in the office of the Accused i.e. the
Survey Section in Tahasildar Office at Ramanagara. But
strangely, the trap mahazar - Ex.P.3 was drawn in the
Lokayuktha Office from 6 to 9.10 p.m. It is stated in the
mahazar - Ex.P.3 that since there was no electricity
supply in the office of the Taluk Surveyor in Ramanagara,
they left the office at 4.00 p.m. and reached Bengaluru at
5.40 p.m. The trap of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 according to
the prosecution was at 3.30 p.m. after P.W.1 gave signal
to the Investigating Officer and informed regarding
acceptance of the bribe amount by Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
The introductory part of Ex.P.3 states that the trap
mahazar was drawn in the Office of the Tahasildar,
Ramanagara Taluk at the time of trap i.e. at about 3.30
p.m., but the concluding part of this document reveals
that the mahazar was drawn in the Office of Lokayuktha
at Bengaluru Rural from 6.00 to 9.10 p.m. I do not think
- 21 -
the explanation given by the prosecution that there was
no electricity supply in the Office of Tahasildar,
Ramanagara, was a hindrance for Investigating Officer to
draw the mahazar at about 3.45 p.m. There is no
satisfactory explanation by the prosecution in this regard
and it is also pertinent to note that there is no document
to confirm the disturbance in supply of electricity to the
Office of Tahasildar, Ramanagara at the relevant date and
time. Further, Ex.P.3 - the trap mahazar also do not
disclose the procedures which were actually conducted in
the Tahasildar's Office and what are all the procedures
that were conducted in the Office of Lokayuktha,
Bengaluru Rural. According to the Investigating Officer,
who deposed before the Court as P.W.7, conducted
almost all the procedures mentioned in Ex.P.3 in the
office of the Accused and not in Lokayuktha Office.
However, he had drawn the mahazar Ex.P.3 in
Lokayuktha Office. But his say before the Court do not get
support from Ex.P.3.
73. It is also not made clear as to how the
independent charge U/Sec. 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is maintainable against Accused No.2
alone.
74. In view of the discussions held above, I am
of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
fact that the official work of P.W.1 was pending with
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as on the date of filing the First
Information or on the date of trap. Further, no proper
trap mahazar is either drawn by the Investigating Officer
or he has not supported his say that the trap mahazar
was drawn in his office at Bengaluru for any valid
reasons. It cannot be said that all the procedures
- 22 -
regarding the trap of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, such as
recovery of tainted amount, handwash of Accused Nos. 1
to 3, recovery of material objects including the pant of
Accused No.2, getting the explanation from Accused
Nos.1 to 3, were conducted in the office of the Accused
and only drawing of the mahazar - Ex.P.3 was in the
office of the Investigating Officer at Bengaluru. These
aspects are very serious, which go to the root of the
matter.
75. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused Nos. 1
to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are
entitled for the beneift of doubt and they are to be
acquitted. Accordingly, I answer the above points in the
Negative".
28. This Court has independently examined all the
all the evidence of prosecution witnesses and materials on
record. On re-examination/reconsideration and
re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and
keeping in the mind the decisions relied upon by both the
learned counsel and also the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court, stated supra, I do not find any legal or factual error
in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
- 23 -
29. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn/KBM
