THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, vs. M/S BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRL.RP. NO.100275/2017 BETWEEN:

MR. SOMASHEKAR V. UMARANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCP: BUSINESS, R/O:ASHIRVAD BUILDING, OPP:RAIKAR HOME, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-21. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADV.)

AND:

MR. AYYANAGOUDA TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE:66 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED SERVICE, R/O:VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.F.V.PATIL & SRI.NANDISH PATIL, ADVS.)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2017 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.40/2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SITTING AT HUBBALLI THEREBY CONFIRMING THAT ORDER IN C.C.NO.51/2014 DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC-II HUBBALLI HEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND IMPOSING THE SENTENCE TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 20,00,000/- WITH DEFAULT SENTENCE.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.09.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER The revision petitioner/accused has filed this criminal revision petition for setting aside the order dated 28.09.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.40/2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Hubballi whereby he has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC-II, Hubballi in C.C.No.51/2014 dated 06.04.2017 convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 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 brief facts leading to the case are that, accused is a real estate developer and used to develop the plots and sell the same at Hubball-Dharwad city. The complainant is good friend of the accused for more than a decade and out of this good relationship, they used to

3 have money transactions regularly. As usual course of friendship, accused has taken a loan from the complainant for the development of plots with an assurance that he will return it in a span of month. The accused is dealing in purchase of agricultural as well as non-agricultural lands for the purpose of forming the residential as well as the commercial layouts for which the accused used to avail loan from the complainant. During the course of development activities, the accused out of good relationship used to approach the complainant and used to get financial assistance and used to return the same. It is alleged that as usual, the accused has availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for business of purchasing and selling the land and sites in Hubballi city with a promise to return it, but the accused failed to cope up his promise. In spite of repeated requests from the complainant, the accused did not repay the loan amount and finally the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.10,00,000/-. The cheque was dated 30.09.2013 and complainant has presented the said cheque through his banker and it

4 returned on 06.11.2013 with an endorsement of insufficient of funds. Then the complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused and accused has issued an evasive reply. Hence, the complainant claimed to have lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, learned Magistrate after taking cognizance has recorded the sworn statement and issued process to the accused. The accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The plea under Section 138 of N.I.Act was framed against the accused and he denied the accusation. Then the complainant was got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has also placed reliance on 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The case of accused is of

5 total denial. However, he claimed that he is going to lead evidence and accordingly, he lead his evidence as D.W.1 and placed reliance on Ex.D1. 5. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, has found that complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act by imposing sentence of fine of Rs.20,00,000/- in default simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.40/2017 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge sitting at Hubballi and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 28.09.2017 dismissed the appeal by the confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, this criminal revision petition

6 came to be filed by the revision petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. Perused the trial court records. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that in all there are seven cases instituted by the complainant against the revision petitioner and in each case, the cheque amount was Rs.10,00,000/-. He would also contend that there is no evidence as to the date of advancement of loan and date of handing over the cheque and this material pleading is absent. He would also contend that to prove the capacity to pay Rs.70,00,000/-, no evidence is placed and the complainant claimed that he had Rs.40,00,000/- in his custody and Rs.30,00,000/- have been availed by loan from his friends, but they were not examined and no material is placed to show that he was possessing

7 Rs.40,00,000/- cash though he is a retired employee. He would also contend that in reply notice as well as in evidence, D.W.1 has deposed in accordance with the defence and the messages relied by the complainant have no relevancy, as the messages were for the year 2012 but the transaction is alleged to be of the year 2013. He would specifically assert that the financial condition of the complainant to pay Rs.70,00,000/- itself is not established and as such, in view of the dispute of financial capacity, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be drawn and the complainant is required to prove his financial capacity. He would also contend that, it is hard to accept that the complainant had paid such a huge amount without any security and without any document. Hence, he would contend that complainant has failed to prove that cheque is issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and hence, he would contend that both the courts below have erred in convicting the accused. As such, he would seek for allowing the revision petition by setting

8 aside the impugned judgments and sought for acquittal of the revision petitioner/accused. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that, financial capacity depends on the status and the complainant was possessing agricultural lands also. He would also contend that financial status was not challenged in the reply notice and financial capacity is not seriously disputed. He would also argue that complainant was possessing 40 acres of land in Hubballi and he is a retired engineer. He would also contend that conduct of the accused after dishonour of first cheque clearly establish the transaction as he has not taken any steps regarding other cheques and he could have instructed the bank. He would also invite the attention of the court towards Exs.P6 to P21 which are messages sent by the accused wherein he has admitted the transactions. He would also contend that in reply notice there was no reason for calling the complainant not to put up other cheques alleged to have been given.

9 Hence, he would contend that presumption is in favour of the complainant under Sections 139 and 118 of N.I.Act. Hence, he would contend that both the courts below have justified in convicting the accused and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration: “Whether the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by both the courts below are contrary, erroneous and illegal so as to call for any interference by this court.” 11. According to the complaint, the accused has availed hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from him and in discharge of the said hand loan, he has issued a cheque as per Ex.P1. The accused has not denied that Ex.P1 belongs to him. Further, he admitted that it bears his signature. However, he has set up a defence regarding he entering

10 into a contract with the complainant in respect of purchase of two flats and in pursuance of the said agreement, he paid Rs.5,00,000/- and seven cheques in all to the complainant. In this regard, he placed reliance on agreement Ex.D1. But, admittedly, Ex.D1 is not between the complainant and the accused. It is a joint development agreement between the complainant and third person in respect of property of the complainant. Hence, initial the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act is in favour of the complainant. However, it is also important note here that accused has denied the financial status of the complainant to pay such a huge amount of loan without there being any security. Apart from that, it is also elicited that there are seven matters of similar type wherein cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- is involved in each of the matters. The evidence of the complainant disclose that he has totally paid Rs.70,00,000/- to the accused. It is interesting to note here that for payment of Rs.70,00,000/-, the complainant has not at all demanded any security agreement from the accused. Further, the

11 complainant himself admits that he was retired Superintendent Engineer and retired in 2000. The transaction is alleged to have taken place in 2013. Hence, it is incumbent on the part of the complainant to establish his financial status, when his financial status is disputed. 12. Apart from that, in the entire complaint and in his evidence, the complainant nowhere pleaded as to when exactly he advanced hand loan to the accused. The specific date of advancement of loan is not referred in the complaint or in his evidence. Rs.10,00,000/- is not a small amount and it is hard to accept that complainant did not remember the date of advancement of loan. Even the complainant has not pleaded as to the date of handing over of the cheque by the accused. This material evidence is also missing in the complaint. Even in the evidence also he has not stated when cheque Ex.P1 came to be issued and in the light of these aspects, the cross-examination of the complainant is required to be considered.

12 13. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 claims that he has specifically mentioned in the complaint regarding date of advancement of loan, but admittedly that is not forthcoming. Even in his cross-examination, he did not disclose this aspect. He claims that no security document is obtained and he paid Rs.70,00,000/- as hand loan to the accused. This part of the cross-examination of P.W.1 reads as under: “zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀævÉUÁV vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAr¯Áè. MmÁÖgÉ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ gÀÆ.70 ®PÀë ¸Á® PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ G½zÀ PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á®zÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ®Æè PÀÆqÁ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀ¤AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj DAiÀiÁ PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á®zÀ ¨sÀzÀævÉUÀ½UÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà °TvÀªÁzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAr¯Áè JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á® PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É E¯Áè. CzÀgÀAvÉ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ F ªÉÄîPÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á®zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃnðUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹¯Áè JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CAzÀgÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á® G½zÀ gÀÆ.10 ®PÀë ºÁUÀÆ G½zÀ ¥ÀæPÀqÉzÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¦ügÁ墣À°Ì £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.60 ®PÀë gÀRAUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆÃnðUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹¯Áè JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CzÀgÀAvÉ MmÁÖgÉ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ gÀÆ.70 ®PÀë ºÀt ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV gÀÆ.20 ¸Á«gÀPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ

13 ¸ÀAzÀ§ðzÀ°è ZÀPÀÌ CxÀªÁ r.r. ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÊUÀqÀ ¸Á® gÀÆ.70 ®PÀë ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß DzÁAiÀÄ vÉjUÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹¯Áè CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀÆwð gÀÆ.70 ®PÀë £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹¯Áè. PÁgÀt CzÀgÀ°è gÀÆ.40 ®PÀë £À£Àß gÀRA EzÀÄÝ G½zÀ gÀÆ.30 ®PÀë ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÉÝ. ¸ÀzÀj gÀÆ.30 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¦ügÁ墣À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹¯Áè JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.” 14. This cross-examination reveals that complainant has not obtained any document for having advanced loan. Further, he admits that he has not produced any documents to show that he had such a huge amount in his custody to the tune of Rs,70,00,000/- so as to advance loan to the accused. Though he claims that he had documents to show that he was possessing such a huge amount, no such documents are forthcoming to establish this aspect. He also admits that he had knowledge that transaction above Rs.20,000/- is required to be done by cheque or demand draft. He has also admitted that he has not shown Rs.70,00,000/- in his income tax returns. Very interestingly, in the further cross- examination, he claims that only Rs.40,00,000/- out of

14 Rs.70,00,000/- belongs to him and he managed Rs.30,00,000/- from other persons by availing loan. If at all that is the case, then what was the need for the complainant to pay it to the accused by availing loan is not at all forthcoming as he is claiming that he is not charging any interest and any security. It is hard to accept that complainant advanced such a huge amount of Rs.70,00,000/- including Ex.P1 to the accused without charging any interest. Even he did not disclose the names of the persons from whom he availed Rs.30,00,000/- as loan. 15. All along, it is alleged that accused was doing a real estate business and he is in the habit of developing plots and selling it and in this regard he has transactions with the complainant. But P.W.1 admits that he has not produced any documents in this regard. Further, P.W.1 has denied in his cross-examination that accused not doing any real estate business. Accused himself is examined as D.W.1 and claims that he was doing BSNL franchise. In the

15 cross-examination it is elicited that he is working as BSNL currency salesman and earlier he was a dealer of TVS two wheeler. It is also elicited that prior to that he was a manager in Centurion Bank of Punjab. He has specifically asserted that except mobile currency business he is not doing any other business. In the entire cross-examination of P.W.1 there is no suggestion that accused was also a real estate developer. It is the specific contention of the complainant that accused was doing a real estate development business and in order to develop the plots he used to transact with the complainant. But when the accused himself claimed that he was a manager earlier and then a dealer in TVS two wheeler and now working as a mobile currency salesman, there were no suggestions that he was earlier doing business of real estate development. Even in the reply notice by accused which is marked as Ex.P5, there is specific denial that the accused was doing any real estate development business. Hence, it is incumbent on the part of the complaint to prove that initially accused was a real estate developer, but no such

16 evidence is forthcoming. When the complainant has failed to substantiate his financial capacity, the initial presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act is not available to him. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant all along contended that complainant is a landlord and capacity depends on the status. No doubt normally capacity depends on the status, but when it comes to a business transaction to the tune of advancing hand loan of Rs.70,00,000/- which is a huge amount, the financial capacity becomes relevant and required to be proved that too when it is alleged that the said loan is advanced without any security or execution of any document. The learned counsel further contended that complainant is a landlord and possessing 40 acres of land in Hubballi and hence he is financially sound. However, neither in the evidence nor in the complaint there is any assertion regarding complainant possessing 40 acres of land and this is first time submitted during the course of

17 the arguments. No such statement is made by the complainant. Even in the legal notice, no such assertion is forthcoming. Further, no documents have been produced. Under these circumstances, the said argument that complainant possessed 40 acres of land cannot be accepted. Apart from that, he admits that he has taken loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from others so as to advance the same to the accused which disclose that he was not having such amount. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant further contended that transaction has been admitted and in this regard he placed reliance on Exs.P6 to P21 which are messages which disclose that there are certain financial transactions between the complainant and the accused. But the transaction regarding Exs.P6 to P21 are for the year 2012 and hence, the said transaction is earlier to December, 2012 and the present transaction is of the year 2013. It is not the case of the complainant that loan was advanced in 2012 itself

18 and no such specific assertion is made. As observed above, in the complaint no date of advancement of loan is forthcoming. Hence, Exs.P6 to P21 do not come to the aid of the complainant in any way in this regard. 18. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V Vs. P.K.Basheer and Others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and also in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 regarding admissibility of electronic records Exs.P6 to P21 and Ex.P23-CD. In normal course they are not admissible, but principles enunciated in the above cited decisions cannot be made applicable in view of the fact that D.W.1, i.e., accused in his cross-examination dated 07.06.2015 has specifically admitted that messages Exs.P6 to P21 were sent by him. Hence, admissibility of these messages does not have any relevancy, at this juncture in view of the admission on the part of the accused for having sent

19 the messages and above cited principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. However, there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that these messages are related to this transaction as alleged. Admittedly, these messages were for the period from October, 2012 to December 2012. No evidence is lead by the complainant to show that the present transaction is prior to October, 2012 and no such case is made and the complaint is completely silent in this regard. 19. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa V. Mudibasappa reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 and argued that non-mentioning of the date of cheque by the complainant in the complaint as well as in his evidence and failing to prove the financial capacity is fatal to the case of the complaint. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: “(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138, S.139, S.118(a)— Dishonour of cheque - Non-mentioning of date of issuance of cheque by complainant in complaint as well as in his evidence - Complainant not satisfactorily

20 explaining contradiction in complaint vis-a-vis his examination-in-chief and cross-examination - His failure to prove financial capacity though he is a retired employee to advance substantial amount to different persons including accused - Findings of Trial Court that complainant cannot prove his financial capacity, cannot be termed as perverse without discarding evidence laid by defence - Accused entitled to acquittal.”

21 case (supra) has again observed that, when the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defence and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant, the court is required to draw inference that accused has raised probable defence and consequentially in the event of complainant failing to prove his financial capacity, the prosecution is bound to fail. In Basalingappa’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically observed that when the financial capacity is challenged and when there was statutory reply given by the accused by disputing his financial capacity, the probable defence is required to be drawn and the said principles are directly applicable to the case in hand. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Veerappa Sayappa Vs. B.A.Chandramouli reported in AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 1509, wherein similar view is taken by this court. He has further placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Veerayya Vs G.K.madivalar in Crl.R.P.No.1571/2010, wherein, in

22 similar circumstances, this court has held that presumption stands rebutted. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Yeshwanth Kumar Vs. Shanth Kumar N. reported in 2019(6) Kar.L.J. 553. In the instant case also the amount involved is huge amount of Rs.70,00,000/-. The cross-examination of P.W.1 itself establish that he had no capacity and he claims to have arranged Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- has been availed by taking loan. He did not whisper from whom he has taken the loan and what was the need for him to advance Rs.70,00,000/- without any interest is not forthcoming that too by taking loan from others to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same is not explained. He has also not produced any documents to prove his financial capacity. Though all along he contended that the accused is a real estate developer, that was not suggested during the course of cross-examination of the accused. 21. It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that, financial status is not challenged in the

23 notice and it is not seriously disputed. The said contention cannot be accepted and though in the reply notice the financial status is not challenged, in the cross-examination, D.W.1, his financial capacity was exposed. As such, it cannot be argued that it is not seriously disputed. It is argued that conduct of the accused after dishonour of first cheque, issuance of notice and not taking further steps clearly disclose the transaction. But the said argument cannot be accepted as the said principle is also applicable to the complainant as he has not taken any steps in this regard when first cheque came to be dishonoured. Very interestingly, P.W.1 admitted that after bouncing of the cheque, he did not contact the accused and enquired with him and straightway issued the notice. When he had such a close acquaintance with the accused, in normal course he would have first attempted to contact the accused and then he would have issued legal notice, but no such steps have been taken by the complainant and it will disclose his conduct also.

24 22. Apart from that, when the first cheque issued by the accused is not honoured and when the payment of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- is not returned, what compelled the complainant to pay further regular amount of Rs.60,00,000/- is not at all forthcoming. There is also no evidence in respect of what is the interval in respect of payment of Rs.70,00,000/- by installment of Rs.10,00,000/- at each time. 23. Ex.P6 to P21 does not establish the present transaction of 2013 as they are pertaining to 2012 and it is not the case of the complainant that this transaction is of the year 2012. Looking to these facts and circumstances, it is evident that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in detail and only on the ground that cheque was issued and signed by accused proceeded to hold that accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act ignoring the fact that such a huge amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is paid by the complainant without any security or document and also he

25 had failed to establish his financial capacity. As such, both the courts below have committed an error and the judgments of both the courts below are arbitrary, erroneous and illegal and calls for interference by this court. Accordingly, I answer the point under consideration in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER

The criminal revision petition is allowed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.40/2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Hubballi confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC-II, Hubballi in C.C.No.51/2014 dated 06.04.2017 convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are set aside. The accused/revision petitioner stands acquitted.

The amount deposited by the revision petitioner, if any, before the trial Court shall be returned to him.

Sd/- JUDGE MBS/-