- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.470 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANDEPANDA RAJESH @ AIYAPPA, S/O MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O CHEMBEBELLUR VILLAGE, VIRAJPET. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. RAJARAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIRAJPET RURAL P.S., VIRAJPET. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, VIRAJPET IN S.C.NO.2/2008 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 27(1) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.8 Sri Achari Seetharama without having any valid licence manufactured one S.B.B.L. gun and sold the same to accused No.7. Accused No.7 along with accused Nos.1 to 6 had a conspiracy to murder C.W.1 Jeevan on 26.07.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., in Chembebellur Village and accused Nos.1 to 8 had common object to murder C.W.1 Jeevan with conspiracy. When C.W.1 was returning to his house after completing his work, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 restrained C.W.1 Jeevan. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4, accused No.1 fired with gun on C.W.1 Jeevan, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his left chest as well as hand. Based on the complaint Ex.P.1, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.9 by P.W.25, the case was registered, the matter was investigated and invoked the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 120B of IPC and Sections 27(1), 25 and 3 of the Indian Arms Act against the accused persons. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 The accused persons were arrested and faced trial and the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.27 and also the documents at Exs.P.1 to 43 and also got marked M.O.1 to M.O.20. A portion of the statement of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.D.1 and the accused not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, accepted the case of the prosecution in respect of accused No.1 and in respect of other accused persons not accepted the same and acquitted the other accused persons. Accused No.1 was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the India Arms Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that even though the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.8 Achari Seetharama has manufactured S.B.B.L. Gun and sold the same to accused No.7, the Trial Court acquitted all other accused persons in coming to the conclusion that there was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 no any conspiracy and an intention to take away the life of the injured, but erroneously comes to the conclusion that accused No.1 only shot the victim and comes to the conclusion that the material available on record proves the guilt of accused No.1 that he had used the gun and shot the victim and as a result, he had sustained injuries and he was in hospital for a period of 23 days and the evidence corroborates that accused No.1 had only committed the offence and committed an error in accepting the circumstantial evidence of P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.2 is also inconsistent with regard to the very incident is concerned. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks about the presence of accused Nos.3 and 4, but the Trial Court not accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Trial Court ought to have extended the benefit in favour of accused No.1 also. The learned counsel contend that the material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and committed an error in relying upon the evidence of P.W.8 auto driver, P.W.9 doctor who conducted the examination of the injured and referred the injured to the higher centre and also the evidence of P.W.19 Ballistic expert and the evidence of P.W.25 not corroborates with the evidence of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 prosecution witnesses and the Trial Court fails to take note of the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The learned counsel contend that even P.W.19 was not able to give opinion that the very same gun was used to fire against the victim and it was rusted. When such material was available before the Court, the Trial Court committed an error in taking into note of the evidence of partisan witness, who has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that the case is filed by the accused against him and inspite of it committed an error in convicting and sentencing accused No.1. Considering the nature of injuries, the same was not warranted and the same does not commensurate with the allegation and the charges levelled against accused No.1 and hence it requires interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he had sustained injuries and specifically pointed out the role of accused No.1 that he only shot him and the same was witnessed by P.W.2. P.W.3, who is the brother of the victim came to the spot on the information given by P.W.2 and shifted the victim to the hospital. The learned counsel contend that the evidence of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 the prosecution witnesses is clear that accused No.1 was identified with the aid of the jeep light and P.W.8 also spoken about he only dropped accused No.1 near the house of the injured. The learned counsel contend that the evidence of P.W.9 doctor is clear that he treated the injured and the statement of the injured was recorded in the presence of P.W.9 by P.W.25 and the evidence of P.W.19 corroborates with the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel contend that even the gun was also recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and P.W.1 was the recovery witness. The evidence of P.W.25 is clear with regard to registration of the case and recording of the injured statement in the presence of P.W.9 doctor and he also recovered the gun and the same belongs to accused No.8 and the evidence of P.W.27 is also clear. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the accused and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent and on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction? (ii) What Order? Point No.(i): 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, no doubt, the prosecution booked the case against accused Nos.1 to 8. It is the case of the prosecution that all of them, particularly accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 wrongly restrained the victim P.W.1 Jeevan. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 shot the injured P.W.1 with an intention to take away the life and that accused No.1 used Nada Kovi without valid licence and fired against P.W.1, which has resulted in causing of injury to the injured. The charges were framed that accused Nos.3 and 4 abated accused No.1 to commit the murder of P.W.1 and so also all of them conspired with each other and accused No.8 during the year 2006 manufactured Nada Kovi without licence for manufacturing and transferred it to accused No.7 and accused - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 No.7 was in possession of the said gun without any licence. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.27 and so also the documents at Exs.P1 to 43 and M.O.1 to M.O.20. 8. The scope of this appeal is very limited. Though accused Nos.1 to 8 are booked for the above offences, the Trial Court having assessed the evidence available on record, convicted accused No.1 only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act in answering point Nos.2 and 3 and other charges levelled against other accused persons were not proved and hence acquitted the other accused persons. In view of the narrowing down of the material on record, particularly conviction against accused No.1, this Court has to examine whether the evidence available before the Court is properly appreciated by the Trial Court or not and whether the discrepancies found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution. 9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks about the presence of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The Trial Court taken note of the admission given by P.W.1 during the course of cross- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 examination and extended the benefit in favour of other accused persons. P.W.1 speaks about at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet from the jeep, accused No.1 Rajesh, accused No.3 Baby, accused No.4 Shivu and accused No.2 Manoj came from his estate towards the mud road. His evidence is clear that accused No.1 Rajesh was having a Kovi. They were at a distance of 10 to 12 feet from him in opposite to him on the mud road on the right side of the mud road while going towards his house. He says that accused No.4 Shivu told Rajesh to fire at him and accused No.1 Rajesh fired at him with the gun. As a result, he sustained injury on the left chest portion and also he had sustained bullet injury on his left arm. The bullet entered his chest and went out from the armpit. 10. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that he has not stated in his statement that accused No.1 Rajesh, accused No.3 Baby and accused No.4 Shivu jointly restrained him and Rajesh shot the gun. This was taken note of by the Trial Court while extending the benefit in favour of other accused persons. He says that he has stated in his complaint that he saw the accused from the head lights of the jeep. The house of Ganesha is behind the house of Annaiah. He admits - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 that in the complaint it does not mention that accused No.4 Shivu instigated accused No.1 Rajesh to fire the gun. He told the police in the hospital that at the instance of accused No.4 Shivu, accused No.1 Rajesh fired the gun. There was no enmity between himself and Shivu and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court while assessing the evidence. He categorically admits that he has not assaulted accused No.4 Shivu and accused No.6 Machaiah and also he has not assaulted them stating that they should not mingle with accused No.1 Rajesh. He admits that he has not given the statement before the police stating that he advised Shivu and Machaih not to mingle with accused No.1 Rajesh. There was a misunderstanding between him and accused No.3 Baby in respect of telephone wire incident. He admits that he do not know whether accused No.1 was working under his owner excise contractor prior to him. He admits that Baby and others were acquitted in the criminal case. 11. The other witness is P.W.2 who was present along with the injured at the time of incident. He also reiterates that he stopped the jeep facing the mud road leading to the house of Jeevan. As it was dark he put on the head lights of the jeep for showing the road. He also says that accused - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 Nos.1, 3 and 4 came from the estate of Jeevan from his front side. He says that accused No.1 Rajesh was holding a gun and fired the gun at Jeevan at the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4. It is his evidence that the pellets hit Jeevan on the left portion of the chest and left arm and he suffered bleeding injuries. The accused persons were at a distance of about 8 feet from Jeevan when the gun was fired. 12. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, it is elicited that he was working under Suja Kushalappa since about 4 years prior to the incident. He know accused No.1 Rajesh only and he does not know the other accused persons. He categorically admits that he has stated before the police that he saw accused No.1 Rajesh only and he do not know the other two persons. This was also taken note of by the Trial Court while extending the benefit in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is clear with regard to accused No.1 only shot P.W.1. 13. P.W.3 is a hearsay witness, who is none other than the brother of the injured and he came to know about the incident through P.W.2 and then he came to the spot and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 shifted the injured to the hospital and he is only a circumstantial witness. 14. The other witness is P.W.8 and he says that he knows accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and also he knows the injured. It is his evidence that an year back, he came to know that Jeevan was shot by gun. About ten days prior to the incident, he returned home at about 6 p.m. and then went to bring the cattle which were left for grazing towards Devangeri and Chambebellur. When he went near the corner shop, Rajesh was there. He told him to drop him near his house. He boarded his auto. There were none else except Rajesh. He told him to wait for 10 minutes near his house. He went inside the house. He returned and boarded his auto. He has not seen what was in his hands. He asked him to drop near the temple near the house of Jeevan at a distance of about 5 furlong from his house. He brought him near the temple. Again he asked him to take him to the corner shop as his mobile phone was lost. This evidence is also taken note of by the Trial Court that his evidence is very clear with regard to the incident is concerned and that he only brought accused No.1 near the temple i.e., near the house of the injured. The evidence of P.W.8 is with regard to circumstantial - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 evidence that accused No.1 went near the temple and also house of the injured and he was alone and that also creates doubt with regard to the presence of other accused persons. 15. The main witness is P.W.9 doctor. In his evidence he says that on 26.07.2006 at about 8.45 p.m., the injured Jeevan was brought by his brother Mohan with the history of gun shot injuries and on examination he found four injuries, particularly lacerated wound over the left side of the chest at mid clavical line between 2nd and 3rd intercastal space measuring 4 x 3 cms. dept was not made out (entry wound), wound over the anterior axilary region measuring 2 x 2 cms. depth not made out, wound over just near the second wound measuring 2 x 2 cms. depth was not made out and wound over the left arm at middle 1/3rd measuring 1 cm. diameter and injuries 2 to 4 are exit wounds. He says that he gave first aid and referred the patient to higher hospital. It is also his evidence that he has intimated the admission of the patient to Virajpet police. Within 15 minutes police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Jeevan in his presence. He endorsed with his signature on the statement of the injured as Ex.P.1(b). He says that the injured was conscious and well oriented at the time of examination. The - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 age of the injuries was within 6 hours prior to his examination. Subsequently, he came to know that the injured was admitted to B.M.Hospital, Mysore. He has received the report from B.M.Hospital, Mysore, which is marked as Ex.P.10. All the injuries are grievous in nature. He has issued the wound certificate in terms of Ex.P.11. It is his evidence that the exit wounds correspond to the entry wound. The injuries are possible by gun shot, but he cannot say the type of gun which can cause these injuries. The injury was danger to the life as per the report of B.M. Hospital. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. 16. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 5. The learned counsel for accused No.1 adopts the cross-examination of learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 5 and he did not cross- examine the doctor. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of this witness with regard to the nature of gun shot injuries. Hence, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.9 corroborates with regard to the fact that the injuries are grievous in nature and they are gun shot injuries. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 17. P.W.19 is the Ballistic Expert and in his evidence he says having received articles 1 and 2 and subjected for examination after opening the seized articles and examined the articles and gave the opinion that the hole marked as 2H1 to 2H3 have been caused due to the passage of led shots and led pellets. The probable weapon used for the offence is a 12 bore fire arm or a mussle loader. The approximate range of firing is in between 6 to 9 feet from the muzzle end of the gun with respect to hole marked as 2H1 on the shirt in article No.2. No typical gunshot holes were found on the shirt in article No.1. He also gave the certificate in terms of Ex.P.25. 18. In the cross-examination, he says that he opened the said articles and noticed that article No.1 contained one short 12 bore gun bearing No.A/1749 made in India Shakthiman. Article No.2 contained cloth pieces. Article No.3 contained 12 bore cartridge heads, piston wads, LG shots, led pellets, wet smoke less gun powder particles stained with mud. He examined the articles and furnished the opinion. M.O.11 contains 12 bore cartridge heads, piston wads, LG shots, led pellets, wet smoke less gun powder. M.O.1 gun is in complete rusted condition and its cocked hammed is not releasing. In the cross-examination of this witness he says - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 that he has conducted chemical test and also seen through the lens whether it contained gun powder residue or not. If the gun powder residue is found then it indicates the gun has been fired. If the gun is completely rusted, then the rust cannot be removed by putting oil. The Investigating Officer did not call him to visit the spot. In the shirt article No.1, there was no gun shot mark. On the basis of the diameter of the hole 2H1 the range will be ascertained and hence he says that it is within the distance of 6 to 9 feet. In the cross- examination of this witness except eliciting the answer that not found any gun shot mark on the shirt, nothing is elicited with regard to the using of the gun and that he was unable to give opinion since M.O.1 was rusted. 19. The other witness is P.W.21. It is his evidence that after about four months of the gun shot incident, the police called him near the temple. From there the police took him along with accused No.1 Rajesh to his estate. Accused No.1 Rajesh removed some mud from his hands and produced two plastic covers before the police. One cover contained a Kovi. The other cover contained empty cartridges and some clothes. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 20. In the cross-examination he says that he saw Rajesh and Anil near the temple from a distance of about 3 feet. There was a case against him and Jeevan under the provisions of SC and ST Act. The police called him to come near the temple at about 10 a.m. When he went to the temple, Ganesh and Uthappa were there. No writing was prepared near the temple. The distance between the temple and the estate of Rajesh is about 2 furlong. The police did not inform him anything near the temple. He has not signed the mahazar. His evidence is clear with regard to the recovery is concerned at the instance of accused No.1 and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.21 to disbelieve the case of the prosecution regarding recovery. 21. P.W.25 is the ASI who received the telephone message from Government Hospital at 8.40 p.m. In his evidence he says that he visited the hospital and received the medical intimation and recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex.P.1 who was under treatment at 9.00 p.m. He identified his signature. He registered the case and also arrested accused No.1 and he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.35 and secured the panchas to the police station and went to his estate and - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 recovered the weapon which was used and drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.16. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that accused No.8 was having a valid licence for repairing Kovis. Except this answer, nothing is elicited regarding recovery at the instance of the accused. 22. P.W.26 is the PSI, who is the witness to seizure of blood stained cloth of Mani and two plastic bags containing vegetables under the same mahazar. P.W.26 is not a material witness. 23. P.W. 27 is the RMO. He says that one Dr. Kudri has removed the pellets from the body of Jeevan by conducting an operation in their hospital on 27.07.2006. He was the RMO at the B.M.Hospital, wherein the injured was subjected to surgery and speaks about making signature to the document Ex.P.18 and sending of a letter to the forensic expert. His evidence is also not disturbed by cross-examining the witness. 24. Having re-assessed the material available on record, though P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks about the presence of accused Nos.3 and 4, having considered the answers elicited - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 from the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Trial Court rightly given the benefit of doubt in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, it is very clear that accused No.1 only shot the injured and P.W.2, who was the driver was very much present along with the injured at the time of the incident. P.W.3 is the brother of the injured who came to the spot on the information given by P.W.2 and immediately shifted the injured to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.9 doctor is also clear that the injured brother i.e., P.W.3 shifted the injured to the hospital and he gave the first aid and also informed the police and the police came and recorded the statement of the injured in his presence and identified his signature as Ex.P.1(b). P.W.9 says that the injured was having conscious and capable to give statement before the police. It is important to note that the incident was taken place at 8.30 p.m. and the injured was taken to the hospital within a span of 15 minutes and the doctor treated the injured immediately and he was capable to make the statement. Ex.P.1 complaint is very specific with regard to accused No.1 shot the injured and P.W.25 recorded the statement of the injured and registered the case based on the statement of P.W.1. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 25. P.W.19, who is the Ballistic expert says that he was not able to give the details about whether M.O.1 was used for firing, since the same was rusted and the recovery was made after four months of the incident and the recovery at the instance of the accused is also very clear. P.W.21 clearly deposes before the Court that he was called near the temple by the police and thereafter accused No.1 led him and the police to his estate and pointed out M.O.1, which was kept inside the mud. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent with regard to accused No.1 only shot the injured P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.3 is circumstantial evidence and also a hearsay evidence and he came to know about the incident through P.W.2. The evidence of the witnesses is clear that accused No.1 was identified with the help of jeep lights. The evidence of P.W.8 also goes against accused No.1 that accused No.1 took the assistance of P.W.8 to go to particular spot and P.W.8 auto driver only dropped him. Having considered the evidence of P.W.9 doctor, ballistic expert evidence P.W.19 and the evidence of P.W.25, it is clear that P.W.25 immediately rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital in the presence of P.W.9 doctor. All these material clinches the evidence of the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 prosecution that there was no delay and also pointed out the role of this accused and within a span of 15 minutes, the injured was taken to the hospital and treated and statement was given before the police in the presence of the doctor P.W.9. All these materials connects against the accused and the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court though given the benefit in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4 and other accused persons, ought to have given the benefit in favour of the appellant cannot be accepted. All the evidence goes against the accused and the injured evidence is clear with regard to accused No.1 only shot him with the gun. The evidence of P.W.19 is very clear that those injuries could be caused by gun and they are the gun shot injuries. The evidence of each of the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 19, 21, 25 and 27 corroborates the case of the prosecution, particularly against this appellant and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 26. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when P.W.19 was not able to say in which gun the gunshot was made, the said benefit should go to the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 appellant cannot be accepted, since P.W.1 evidence is clear that accused No.1 only shot him and P.W.2 was very much present at the time of the incident. The Trial Court while acquitting the other accused persons taken note of with regard to sharing of common object and common intention as well as conspiracy and there was no any material to come to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy in attempting to take away the life of P.W.1. Hence, nothing is found to come to other conclusion that accused No.1 has not committed the offence. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to exercise the appellate jurisdiction to come to other conclusion. Hence, I answer the point in the negative. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that ten years imprisonment is exorbitant. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the evidence of the doctor as well as ballistic expert is clear that it is danger to the human life and also injuries are grievous in nature and he had used the gun with an intention to take away the life of the injured. When such intention is found while firing, the very contention that the sentence is exorbitant cannot be accepted. The Trial Court having - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16332 CRL.A No. 470 of 2013 considered the gravity of the offence and the nature of the injuries, convicted and sentenced the appellant and the sentence imposed commensurate with the nature of injuries and the gravity of the offence. Hence, the question of reducing the sentence also does not arise. Point No.(ii): 28. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48