- 1 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.521 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M. BALAJI S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED: 40 YEARS, EX-ASSISTANT POST MASTER, R/O VARADAPURA VILLAGE, BOODIKOTE HOBLI, TALUK : BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULBAGAL POLICE STATION, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DIST-563101. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24.03.2014 IN C.C.NO.79/2008 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MULBAGAL AND JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.28/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AND BY ACQUITTING HIM OF THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.04 12:46:28 +0530 - 2 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24th March 2014, passed in CC No.79 of 2008 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mulbagal (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short “the appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2014 dated 6th February, 2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to this revision petition are that the Police Sub-Inspector, Mulbagal, submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that from 30th January, 1999 to 28th September, 2004, the accused was working as Branch Postmaster at Kothamangala Branch Post Office and during that period, the accused has dishonestly misappropriated the amount deposited by the customers. The same is as under: - 3 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 “a) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.2-K.Narayanappa from 12.5.2003 to 20.9.2004 to his SB Account No. 193031. b) Not remitted Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.2,250/- to the government which was deposited by CW.3- K.Suvarna from 27.1.2004 to 20.9.2004 to her RD A/c. No.241101. c) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.4-Sarswathamma from 17.8.2002 to 21.7.2004 to her RD A/c. No.240742. d) Not remitted Rs.1,600/- out of Rs.2,000/- deposited by CW.5-Venkatalakshmamma from 24.11.2003 to 23.9.2004 to her RD A/c. No.240425. e) Not remitted Rs.6,000/- to the government deposited by CW.6-Vishalakshamma on 26.2.2004 to her SB A/c. No.193602. f) CW.7-R.Munireddy, Head Master, Govt Higher Primary School, Kothamangala had withdrawn Rs.600/- on 24.7.2003 and Rs.200/- on 29.10.2003 from SB A/c. No.191498, but the accused has drawn Rs.1,600/- and Rs.1,200/- respectively and has misappropriated excess amount of Rs.2,000/-.” 4. The accused, despite mentioning the deposits and withdrawal in the respective account Passbooks, has not - 4 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 remitted the amount to the Government and has drawn excess amount from the account of Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kothamangala and has dishonestly misappropriated the amount and used for his own purpose, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. The accused appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. 5. Upon hearing on framing of charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the charge was altered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused, having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution, in all, has examined, fifteen witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and marked 28 documents as Exhibits P1 to P28. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. - 5 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court. The same came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 6th February, 2018. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 7. Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Revision Petitioner, would submit that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, is illegal, perverse and is liable to be set aside. He submits that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution. None of the witnesses have stated that the entries made in the Books and Registers are in the handwriting of the accused. He would submit that the trial conducted before the trial Court is in - 6 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 contravention of Sections 219 and 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Courts have failed to see that PW1- Saraswathamma, PW2-Venkatalakshmamma and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution that they had entrusted the amount to the accused as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the complainant is only based on records and he had no personal knowledge about the allegation made against the accused. PW5-R.Munireddy, the Headmaster of Government Higher Primary School, Kothamangala, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Both the Courts have failed to consider the material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Central Government Employee and as such, is a public servant. The offences alleged against him are alleged to have been committed while discharging his official duties. Hence, his prosecution, without sanction, is illegal. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 8. On the other hand, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated both the - 7 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 oral and documentary evidence placed before it in its proper perspective and has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment with fine. The same has been confirmed by the appellate Court and the same do not call for interference in this revision petition. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before me, the point that would arise for my consideration would be: “Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court requires intercede by this Court?” 10. I have examined the materials placed before me. Before appreciation of the materials on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 409 of Indian penal code. The same reads as under: “Essential Ingredients:- An offence under Section has following essentials: - 8 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 (i) That the accused was entrusted with the property in any manner; OR That such property was in his dominion, in his capacity of a public servant, or as banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, in the way of his business in such capacity; (ii) The accused committed breach of trust in respect of that property.” 11. In the case on hand, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused, being the Branch Postmaster at Kothamangala Branch Post Office for the period 30th January 1999 to 28th September 2004, has dishonestly misappropriated the money deposited by the customers in the following cases: “a) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.2-K.Narayanappa from 12.5.2003 to 20.9.2004 to his SB Account No. 193031. b) Not remitted Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.2,250/- to the government which was deposited by CW.3- K.Suvarna from 27.1.2004 to 20.9.2004 to her RD A/c. No. 241101. c) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.4-Sarswathamma from - 9 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 17.8.2002 to 21.7.2004 to her RD A/c. No.240742. d) Not remitted Rs.1,600/- out of Rs.2,000/- deposited by CW.5-Venkatalakshmamma from 24.11.2003 to 23.9.2004 to her RD A/c. No. 240425. e) Not remitted Rs.6,000/- to the government deposited by CW.6-Vishalakshamma on 26.2.2004 to her SB A/c. No.193602. f) CW.7-R.Munireddy, Head Master, Govt Higher Primary School, Kothamangala had withdrawn Rs.600/- on 24.7.2003 and Rs.200/- on 29.10.2003 from SB A/c. No.191498, but the accused has drawn Rs.1,600/- and Rs.1,200/- respectively and has misappropriated excess amount of Rs.2,000/-.” 12. Further, the accused, despite mentioning that deposits and withdrawal in the respective account passbook, has not remitted the amount to the government and has excess amount from the account of Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kothamangala, has dishonestly misappropriated the - 10 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 amount and used for his own purpose and thereby, committed the offence. 13. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of entrustment of amount to the accused. He would submit that to prove the factum of entrustment of amount to the accused, prosecution has produced Exhibit P15-Charge report and receipt for cash and stamps on transfer of charge. The scanned copy of the same is printed herebelow: - 11 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 14. To prove this document, the prosecution has examined PW3-N. Govindaraju, Inspector of Posts. He has deposed in his evidence that he has produced SB Journal-Exhibit P15 to show that accused has taken charge of Kothamangala Branch. Except the charge certificate, the Investigating officer has not collected any materials to prove the duties of the accused. The investigating officer has also not collected any material as to taking over the material documents, i.e. SB Journal, pay-in- slips/challans and other Registers maintained in the Branch Post Office, as required under relevant Act and Rules. The investigating officer has also not explained anything as to non- production of these material pieces of evidence before the Court below. In the absence of material evidence, only on the basis of Exhibit P15, mere oral evidence of PW3-N Govindaraju, Inspector of Posts, who is an interested testimony, is not sufficient to prove the alleged entrustment to the accused. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of factum of entrustment. 15. It is alleged that the amount deposited by K Narayanappa from 12th May 2003 to 20th September 2004 to the tune of Rs.4,200/- to his SB A/c No.193031 was not remitted to the Government. To prove this fact, CW2-K - 12 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 Narayanappa has not been examined by the prosecution. However, prosecution has examined PW3-N Govindaraju, Inspector of Posts. He has deposed in his evidence that the said Narayanappa has remitted an amount of Rs.4,200/- between 12th May 2003 to 20th September 2004, and the same was not remitted to the Government. Further, he has deposed that after receiving this amount, the same has to be entered in the SB Journal, but the same is not entered. The passbook pertaining to K Narayanappa is marked as Exhibit P8. As per the passbook, on 24th November 2003, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited; on 30th December 2003 an amount of Rs.500/- was deposited. But in SB Journal, it shown as Rs.100/-. On 22nd March 2004 an amount of Rs.584/- was remitted, but in SB Journal it is shown as Rs.84/-. On 17th May 2004 Rs.500/- was remitted, but in SB Journal, there is no entry in that regard. In the passbook, the concerned Post-Master has also put his initials on the relevant dates in SB Journal Exhibit P19. But none of the witnesses have identified this signature to prove that the accused has affixed his initials in the passbook as well as in the SB Journal. The investigating officer has not taken any steps to prove the signatures/initials found on the passbook as well as in the SB Journal. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to not taking steps to prove the initials - 13 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 affixed on the passbook as also on SB Journal. Moreover, the signatures/initials found on the Passbook, as also on the SB Journal, do not tally each other. As on the date of alleged entrustment, whether the accused was on duty or not has not been proved by the prosecution. The Attendance Register maintained by the concerned Post Office is also not produced. The investigating officer has not explained anything in this regard. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that how the investigating officer has seized Exhibit P8 from the possession of Sri Narayanappa, as the same would be in the custody of account holder himself. Whether Sri Narayanappa has voluntarily produced the passbook before the Investigating Officer or has the Investigating Officer seized the same from the possession of Sri Narayanappa in the presence of panchas under mahazar, has not been disclosed by the prosecution. In the absence of these material evidence, it is difficult to accept the testimony of PW3 that the accused has misappropriated the amount as alleged by the prosecution. Additionally, PW3 has admitted in his cross-examination that they will not conduct Audit every year, but inspect the Registers once in a year. He has further admitted that as regards this Post Office is concerned, since 1990 to 2004, they have not conducted any inspection. He has further admitted that Kothamangala Post - 14 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 Office had only two staff i.e. one Postmaster and one Rural Dak Sewak. Further, he has submitted that when the customers deposit the amount, there will be a pay-in slip with counterfoil. The counterfoil will be with the customer, and the main pay-in- slip will be in the post office. But the investigating officer has not seized the counterfoil or the pay-in-slip. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to non-seizure of these material pieces of evidences. In the absence of this evidence, and also in the absence of evidence of customer i.e. CW2- Narayanappa, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the interested testimony of the prosecution witness cannot be believed, in the absence of supporting documents. 16. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused has not remitted an amount of Rs.4,200/- deposited by CW4-Saraswathamma between 17th August 2002 and 21st July 2004 into her RD A/c No.240702. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the customer Smt. Saraswathamma as PW1. She has not deposed anything against the accused. She has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even during her cross-examination made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor after treating her as hostile witness - 15 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 with the permission of the Court, she has categorically denied the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is marked as Exhibit P1. However, the prosecution had produced the passbook pertaining to Smt. Saraswathamma, which is marked as Exhibit P13. The prosecution has not pointed out that whether the amount shown in Exhibit P13 is shown in RD Journal or not. Smt. Saraswathamma has clearly stated that the accused was working as Postmaster in Kothamangala Post Office and she had RD account in that Post Office and she used to deposit Rs.100/- to her account every month. She has also deposed that she used to give the money to the accused to which accused used to give the receipt and also make an entry in the Passbook. She has also stated that she had deposited Rs.9,000/- to her account and she has received back the same. The same is also observed by the trial Court in paragraph 17 of the Judgment. In the absence of pay-in-slips and the counterfoils, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the accused has misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,200/- with respect to RD A/c No.240702 pertaining to Smt. Saraswathamma. The investigating officer has also not produced any document to show as to withdrawal of the amount as stated by Smt. Saraswathamma. When the - 16 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 customer herself has clearly admitted in her evidence that she has already received whatever the amount she has deposited into her account, the question of misappropriation of the amount by the accused from the account of PW1-Smt. Saraswathamma as alleged by the prosecution, does not arise. 17. It is further alleged by the prosecution that an amount of Rs.2,250/- deposited by CW3-K Suvarna from 27th January 2004 to 20th August 2004 to her account No.241101. In this regard, CW3-K Suvarna is examined as PW4. She has not deposed anything against the accused. This witness is treated as hostile witness and has been cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Even during cross-examination, she has clearly deposed that the Investigating Officer has not recorded any statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is marked as Exhibit P16. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answer from this witness. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P14-Passbook pertaining to Smt. K Suvarna. It is alleged by the prosecution that there is no entry in the SB Journal. But, the relevant entry pertaining to SB Journal is marked as Exhibit P11. As per Passbook, Exhibit P14, and amount of Rs.500/- was remitted on 25th March 2004, and on the same day, again an amount of - 17 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 Rs.750/- was remitted; Rs.1,000/- was remitted on 26th April 2004; Rs.1,250/- was remitted on 27th May 2004; Rs.1,500/- was remitted on 28th June 2004; Rs.1,750/- and Rs.2,000/- was remitted on 28th July 2004; and Rs.2,250/- was remitted on 20th August 2004. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, the investigating officer has not collected pay-in-slips or the counterfoils pertaining to aforesaid transactions, and the investigating officer has also not taken any steps to identify the officials who have put initials in the Passbook on the relevant dates. In the absence of these material pieces of evidence, so also, in view of the fact that the material witness PW4 having not supported the case of the prosecution, it is difficult to accept the interested testimony of the official witness that the accused has misappropriated amount of Rs.2,250/-, as alleged by the prosecution. 18. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that out of Rs.2,000/- deposited by CW5-Venkatalakshmamma to her RD A/c No.240425 from 24th November 2003 to 22nd September 2004, Rs.1,600/- is not deposited to the said account. In this regard, CW5-Venkatalakshmamma is examined before the Court as PW2. She has not supported the case of prosecution. This witness is treated as hostile witness with the permission of - 18 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 the Court and was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. In her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that the police have not recorded the statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is marked as Exhibit P2. However, the prosecution has produced the Passbook pertaining to the account of Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, which is marked as Exhibit P10. Smt. Venkatalakshmamma has deposed that she was depositing Rs.200/- in the said account every month. The amount shown in the Passbook has not found place in the SB Journal. Investigating Officer has not stated anything in this regard nor has collected the pay-in-slips or the counterfoils. 19. It is alleged by the prosecution that an amount of Rs.6,000/- in respect of Account No.193602 pertaining to CW6- Vishalakshi, is not remitted to the Government. The said Vishalakshi is not examined before the Court. However, the prosecution has produced the Passbook of Smt. Vishalakshi as Exhibit P9. The same reveals that on 23rd February 2004, an amount of Rs.50/- was deposited and on 26th February 2004 an amount of Rs.6000/- was deposited into her account. The prosecution has not produced any material to show whether the accused was on duty on 26th February 2004 and as to whether - 19 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 he has affixed his initials on Passbook-Exhibit P9. Further, pay- in-slips or the counterfoils pertaining to the remittances of the amount to her account, has not been produced by the prosecution. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to non-production of these material evidences. In the absence of these material piece of evidence, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the accused has misappropriated the amount of Rs.6,000/- from the account of the customer, as alleged by the prosecution. 20. Nextly, it is alleged by the prosecution, the amount of Rs.2,000/- remitted by CW7-R Munireddy, Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kothamangala to his Account No.191498 has been misappropriated by the accused. In this regard CW7-Sri R Munireddy is examined as PW5. He has not deposed anything against the accused. He has been treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court and has been cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Even during the cross-examination, he has denied as to the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is marked as Exhibit P17. However, the prosecution has produced the Passbook- Exhibit P6 pertaining to PW5-Sri R. Munireddy. The - 20 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 investigating officer has not stated anything as to the identification of the officials who have affixed the initials in the passbook. The investigating officer has not collected any material to show that the accused was on duty on the relevant date. In the absence of material witness, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that the accused has appropriated the amount of Rs.2,000/- remitted by CW7-Sri R Munireddy, merely based on the interested testimony of official witnesses. 21. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. In the absence of material witnesses, though there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the entries shown in the Passbooks, both Courts have blindly accepted the testimony of the official witness and had come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. The same is not sustainable under law. On meticulous examination of both oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, I am of the considered opinion that absolutely there are no cogent, convincing, clinching evidence before this Court to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that essential ingredients of Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. - 21 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 22. With regard to sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, for the first time before this Court, the learned Counsel for the accused-Revision Petitioner has raised this legal point. The initiation of criminal proceedings is not maintainable for want of sanction. It is the case of the prosecution that accused being the Branch Postmaster has misappropriated the amount as alleged by the prosecution. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the investigating officer to obtain sanction before prosecuting the Case. Be that as it may, this Court has held already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, at this stage, there is no need for giving any finding as to obtaining of sanction before initiation of a criminal case. For the aforesaid discussions, I am considered opinion that the both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 22 - RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025 CRL.RP No.521 OF 2018 O R D E R i) Revision Petition is allowed; ii) The Judgment dated 24th March, 2014 passed in CC No.79 of 2008 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mulbagal, which is confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2014 dated 6th February, 2018, is set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian penal code; iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him; v) Registry to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn