- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100568 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI R N SHETTY S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BASAVA RATNA NILAYA MAHANTESH NAGAR GHATAPRABHA TALUK GOKAK DISTRICT BELAGAVI 591 306 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.PLOT NO 332, SY NO.15, BUDA SCHEME NO 51 PANDURANG LAXMI TEK BELAGAVI BELGAUM RECORDS MLI KARNATAKA 590 009. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N D GUNDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 DHARWAD IN SPECIAL CBI CC NO. 15 OF 2013 DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2023, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 120-B, 468 AND 471 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 458, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 (since deceased), accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Advocates), accused No.4 (an Orthopaedic Surgeon), accused No.5 (a Police Inspector and then Station House Officer), accused No.6 (Manager of the KVG Bank), accused No.7 (Administrative Officer in the Legal Section of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.), accused No.8 (Medical Officer), and accused No.9 (Pharmacist) conspired together to commit - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 large-scale insurance fraud with the intent to cheat New India Assurance Company. 3. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, it is alleged that accused No.5 (Police Inspector) fabricated false police records to show that certain individuals—namely, Kariyappa, Beerappa, Satteppa, Halappa, Bahubali, Sanjay, Arjun, Mallappa, Mahadev, and Srishail—had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident purportedly occurring on 28.07.2005. 4. Subsequently, accused No.8 (Medical Officer) is alleged to have issued false wound certificates stating that the aforementioned individuals had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. Accused No.9 (Pharmacist) allegedly made false entries in the OPD register of the Primary Health Post (PHP), falsely recording that the said individuals had received medical treatment there, although no such treatment had actually been rendered. 5. It is further alleged that accused No.4 (Orthopaedic Surgeon) fabricated medical documentation to show that the aforesaid individuals had undergone treatment at Shantha Nursing Home and fraudulently issued medico-legal certificates certifying injuries purportedly sustained in the alleged accident. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 6. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are practicing Advocates and who were fully aware that the said individuals had not sustained any injuries from any road traffic accident, are alleged to have filed ten motor vehicle claim petitions—MVC Nos. 2090/2005 to 2099/2005—before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hukkeri, relying on the fabricated police and medical records. 7. The prosecution further alleges that accused No.1 (deceased) and accused No.7, who was then serving as an Administrative Officer (Legal Section) at New India Assurance Co. Ltd., failed to appoint an independent investigator to verify the authenticity of the accident claims. Instead, in collusion with the co-accused, they facilitated the passing of awards by the MACT in favour of the ten individuals based on fraudulent documentation. 8. It is also alleged that the accused dishonestly and fraudulently used forged and fabricated documents as genuine before the Court and created false sale agreements to enable the disbursement of compensation amounts awarded by the MACT. These acts resulted in the misappropriation of funds and unlawful enrichment of the accused persons. 9. Accused Nos. 1 to 9 are also alleged to have fraudulently impersonated the beneficiaries to receive - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 cheques issued by the Tribunal, thereby dishonestly deceiving the Court. 10. Accused No.6, the Manager of KVG Bank, by misusing his official position, allegedly facilitated the opening of ten Savings Bank Accounts in the names of the aforementioned individuals, in violation of Know Your Customer (KYC) norms, thereby enabling the diversion of compensation funds. 11. As a result of the alleged criminal conspiracy and fraudulent acts committed by the accused persons, the Insurance Company suffered a wrongful loss of Rs. 68,22,422/- and the accused derived unlawful gain. 12. The learned Sessions Court, after hearing both parties, framed charges against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined a total of 87 witnesses, numbered as PWs.1 to PWs.87, and marked 420 documents as Exhibits P1 to P420. Upon completion of the prosecution’s evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were recorded, wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them and claimed the evidence to be false and fabricated. In their defense, the accused produced and marked 11 documents as Exhibits D1 to D11. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 13. Upon detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (accused No.3) and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. It is also recorded that accused Nos.1 and 6 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and therefore, the case against them stood abated. As for accused Nos.2, 4, 5, and 7 to 9, the learned Sessions Court acquitted them of all charges, including the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 458, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant (accused No.3) contended that the conviction is legally unsustainable, as the prosecution had failed to prove that accused Nos.2, 4, 5, and 7 to 9 had conspired together to fabricate documents for the purpose of initiating false motor vehicle claims and fraudulently obtaining compensation. It was further argued that the conviction of accused No.3 under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the IPC, on the ground that the appellant allegedly created forged sale agreements in favour of fictitious claimants, opened savings bank accounts in their names, filed false affidavits, and submitted fabricated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 withdrawal slips to enable the release of compensation, lacks adequate evidentiary foundation. The learned counsel submitted that there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offences, and that the entire prosecution case is based on conjecture and surmise. 16. It was also submitted that the claimants, who were the alleged beneficiaries of the fabricated sale agreements, and who were also the signatories to the bank account opening forms and other supporting documents, were not prosecuted, which raises serious doubts about the selective and discriminatory nature of the prosecution. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that both oral and documentary evidence placed on record amply demonstrate the involvement of accused No.3 in the fabrication of documents with the object of enabling the fraudulent release of compensation amounts. It was argued that the learned Trial Judge, after a meticulous analysis of the evidence, has rightly concluded that the appellant was guilty of the alleged offences. It was further submitted that in the absence of any perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness in the judgment, the same does not call for any interference by this appellate Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 18. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the trial court records, this Court is of the view that the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the impugned judgment of conviction is legally sustainable in the eyes of the law?” 19. Upon evaluation of the material on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused to fabricate a fictitious road traffic accident, create false police and medical records, and thereby fraudulently procure compensation from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the appellant-accused of the said charge. However, it convicted accused No.3 solely on the ground that he was instrumental in fabricating sale agreements, opening bank accounts, and facilitating the disbursement of compensation amounts. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and convenience, it is necessary to examine the testimonies of the relevant prosecution witnesses and the documents pertaining to the allegations against the appellant related to the creation of sale agreements, the opening of bank accounts, and the facilitation of compensation disbursal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 ● Exhibit P-102 is the account opening form submitted to the KVG Bank, Hukkeri, in which the photograph of PW-9 has been affixed, indicating that the said individual was the applicant for opening the bank account. ● Exhibit P-103 is a challan dated 20.04.2006, evidencing the payment of an amount of Rs. 8,65,330/- in cash through the KVG Bank, Hukkeri. The said challan was issued by the Malaprabha Grameena Bank, substantiating a significant financial transaction undertaken in connection with the alleged fraudulent disbursal of compensation. ● Exhibit P-104 is a receipt bearing No. 106274 (P-2003) issued by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hukkeri, which serves as a judicial acknowledgment of receipt in the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). ● Exhibit P-105 is an agreement of sale purportedly executed between PW-9 and one Shrishail Kasvashi, wherein the vendor agreed to convey land bearing R.S. No. 269/1+2+3A+3B/3 measuring 4 acres and 28 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 9,95,000/- was stated to be the balance amount. Notably, accused No.3 is not a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 signatory or attesting witness to the said agreement, and hence his alleged role in the execution of this document is not substantiated by direct documentary evidence. ● Exhibit P-106 is the Record of Rights (RTC) pertaining to the aforementioned land that PW-9 agreed to sell to Shrishail Kasvashi, evidencing the lawful ownership of the said land by PW-9 at the relevant time. ● Exhibit P-107 is another account opening form submitted to KVG Bank, Hukkeri, with the photograph of PW-10 affixed, indicating that PW-10 was the holder of the bank account in question. ● Exhibit P-108 is a withdrawal slip dated 19.04.2006, evidencing the cash withdrawal of Rs. 8,21,500/- from the Malaprabha Grameena Bank, allegedly drawn in connection with the disbursal of compensation amounts pursuant to the claim before the MACT. ● Exhibit P-109 is the statement of account standing in the name of PW-10, which reflects the financial transactions carried out during the relevant period, including the deposit and withdrawal of compensation amounts. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 ● Exhibit P-111 is the sale agreement produced in MVC No. 2090/2005, forming part of the documentary evidence in support of the claim for compensation. The genuineness of this document is in question as part of the overall allegation of conspiracy and fabrication. ● Exhibit P-112 is the Record of Rights (RTC) in respect of Survey No. 102/2, which was relied upon to substantiate the claim of ownership and the proposed sale in support of the compensation claim. The witnesses PW-9 to PW-11, PW-14, PW-16, and PW- 21 are the landowners who entered into agreements of sale with the claimants, who were the purchasers of the property. ● PW-9, the original landowner, deposed that it was false to suggest that he was in collusion with Shrishail. PW- 73 had produced the RTC under Exhibit P-106 and created a false agreement of sale under Exhibit P-111. He also denied impersonating another person while opening a Savings Bank account and withdrawing the amount in the court by using the name of another person. ● PW-10, the original owner, deposed that he does not know Kariyappa Dhawaleshwar, a claimant in MVC No.2090/2005. It was not true to suggest that he had - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 colluded with Kariyappa to create a false agreement of sale under Exhibit P-111 and withdrew the amount by putting the LTM (Signature of another person) on the withdrawal slip. ● PW-11, Vittal D. Piragi, in cross-examination, deposed that he does not know Arjun Shivappa Aihole (PW-81), a claimant in the MVC petition. It was false to suggest that he was in collusion with the claimant and had created a false agreement of sale under Exhibit P-117 by impersonating another person and withdrawing Rs. 8,01,600/- by putting another person’s name in LTM on the withdrawal slip. ● PW-14, Siddappa Kenchappa Banashankari, who was a landowner, deposed that he had not entered into a sale agreement to sell his land and denied his signature on the affidavit filed in the MACT and the withdrawal of the amount as shown in Exhibits P-124 and P-125. He stated that he had not received any consideration for the sale agreement. ● PW-16, Ramachandra Honappa Langoti, the original owner, in his chief examination, deposed that he had not opened any bank account at KVG Bank, Hukkeri, nor filed any affidavit in the MVC claim petition. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 withdrawn any amount under Exhibit P-130 in collusion with Mallappa (PW-71) and denies Exhibit P-128, the agreement of sale in his name. ● PW-21, Maruthi H Harogeri, who is a landowner, deposed that he had not opened any bank account with KVG Bank, Hukkeri, and denied the agreement of sale that he supposedly entered into to convey his land to the claimant. He also stated that he had not received any money for the same. 20. The witnesses PW-12, PW-13, PW-15, PW-17, PW- 18, and PW-22 are the sureties who have filed affidavits before the MACT and produced RTCs of their land. ● PW-12, Parappa Sidhling Khilare, who was a surety, deposed that he had not filed an affidavit in collusion with PW-77 by showing a place of residence at Hatargi Tq., Hukkeri, and filed it before the MACT, Hukkeri. ● PW-13, Sadashiva Shiragure, the original owner, in cross-examination, deposed that he never acted as a surety for PW-77 and had not filed any affidavit or affixed his name in LTM. ● PW-15 stated that he had not filed any affidavit before the MACT, Hukkeri. He denied the claim that he had - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 colluded with Shantappa to get an affidavit sworn and then filed it before the MACT. ● PW-17 stated that he does not know PW-71 in MVC No.2095/2005 and it was true to suggest that, in collusion with PW-71, he got an affidavit sworn as per Exhibit P-131. ● PW-18 denies that he filed an affidavit in support of an application by Arjun Shivappa Aihole (PW-69) in the MACT, Hukkeri. He stated that he was unaware of the transactions between Kedari and Arjun Shivappa Aihole. ● PW-22, Hanumanth V Banashankari, who was a surety, deposed that he does not identify Sanjay Kamble, does not know the appellant, and denies his signature on the affidavit. 20.1 The Witnesses PW-23-27 are the Account holders who had opened the bank to withdraw the compensation amount. ● PW-23, an account holder, deposed that he had not opened any bank account in KVG Bank at Hukkeri. The account opening form is in the name of ittappa phirigi PW-12, and he doesn't identify CW-79 and denies that - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 Subhas Kalal took him and CW-79 at Ghataprabhha and took his photo, thereafter, got filed a claim petition to withdraw the amount. ● PW-24 and PW-25 in the chief examination stated that they have not opened any bank account in KVG Bank at, Hukkeri. They does not identify CW-80, CW-24 and CW-82 respectively. It was false to state that they all filed a claim petition and claimed the award through Halappa and satyappa. ● PW-26 in chief examination states that his brother CW- 18 has not opened any bank account in KVG Bank at, Hukkeri, and the photo in the bank opening form belongs to CW-32 marked at Ex.P 140 and states that he was not aware of any affairs of his brother CW-18 which have been done behind his back. ● PW-27, an account holder, denies that he had opened a bank account in KVG Bank at Hukkeri, and the photo in the account opening form marked as Ex.P 140 was his photo, which was standing in the name of CW-18. 20.2 The statements of all the vendors, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-14, PW-16, and PW-21, the sureties, PW-12, PW-13, PW-15, PW-17, PW-18, and PW-22, and the account - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 holders, PW-23 to PW-27, support the case of the prosecution. However, there is no specific mention of Accused No. 3 being involved in opening the bank accounts in the names of the beneficiaries, nor is there evidence that he visited the bank at the time of opening or withdrawing money from the bank. 21. Further, PW-70, Sathyappa Mahadev Senduri, a claimant, in cross-examination, deposed in paragraph No.16 that he had entered into a sale agreement with Maruthi Jadinavar for purchasing the agricultural land. In paragraph 17, he stated that he and other persons had handed over their ID cards to the appellant, who informed PW-70 to bring the vendor and a surety to release the order from the MACT. The appellant had filed the affidavit of the surety, vendors, and ID cards before the Court. 22. The appellant had produced the documents based on the instructions of the claimants, discharging his professional duty. The Learned Sessions Court had admitted that an accident had occurred, the claimants were the same injured persons, and the genuineness of the documents was examined while issuing the cheques based on the order passed by the MACT. Analysis 23. Section 120-A of the IPC deals with the definition of criminal conspiracy. It states that when two or more persons - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 agree or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a “criminal conspiracy.” It further provides an exception that no agreement, except an agreement to commit an offence, shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act, besides the agreement, is done by one or more parties in pursuance of the agreement. The explanation attached to the Section clarifies that it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or merely incidental to that object. 24. Section 120-B of the IPC prescribes the punishment for committing an offence of criminal conspiracy. It states that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted the offence, unless a specific provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such conspiracy. 25. A conjoint reading of Section 120-A and Section 120-B of the IPC establishes that the offence of ‘criminal conspiracy’ is a separate and distinct offence. To establish a criminal conspiracy and invoke its provisions, two essential factors are necessary: firstly, the involvement of more than one person, and secondly, an agreement between or among such persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal but is done by illegal means. To - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 constitute a criminal conspiracy, the joint efforts of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act by lawful means must be established. 26. In the case of Bilal Hajar v. State Rep by Inspector of Police, (Crl.A No. 1305/2008), the essential requirements necessary to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy were elucidated: “32. Therefore, in order to constitute a conspiracy, the meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy being hatched, nor is it necessary to prove their active part/role in such a meeting.” 27. Accordingly, in the present case, the Learned Sessions Court in the impugned judgment of conviction acquitted Accused No. 2, 4, 5, and 7 to 9 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that there was no evidence against them for committing the alleged offences. The Court held that there was no fake claim and that all injured persons had deposed that they had met with an accident and obtained wound certificates. However, only Accused No. 3 was convicted for the alleged offences of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 criminal conspiracy and forgery of sale agreement documents and affidavits. 28. The prosecution has failed to establish that there was an agreement between Accused No. 3 and other persons to commit the offence of criminal conspiracy. There is no material produced by the prosecution that establishes that Accused No. 3 conspired with others to institute false MVC petitions before the MACT. Since the Learned Sessions Court concluded that an accident occurred and the claimants sustained injuries, the essential ingredients of Section 120-A of the IPC, requiring the meeting of minds of Accused No. 3 with two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, and the sine qua non element of mens rea, are clearly absent. 29. Further, Section 468 of the IPC deals with the offence of committing forgery with the intention to use the forged document for the purpose of cheating. It does not require that the accused actually commit the offence of cheating; it is sufficient if the act is “likely to cause” such an outcome. Forgery is usually done in furtherance of some other criminal design. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery. If the offender’s intention is that the forged document should be used for the purpose of cheating, the offender is guilty of the aggravated offence under Section 468 IPC. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 30. Section 471 of the IPC provides that any person who uses a document or electronic record as a genuine document, knowing that it is forged, with fraudulent and dishonest intent, shall be punished as if he had forged the document or record. 31. In order to establish an offence under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC, the fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused to forge documents in furtherance of committing an offence of cheating is essential. It must be shown that the accused used a genuine document intentionally, believing it to be forged. 32. In the present case, the Learned Sessions Court convicted Accused No. 3 on the allegation that he had created and produced false sale agreements, affidavits of the claimants, landowners, sureties, and opened an SB account in the name of fictitious persons. The Court relied on the statements of all the vendors (PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-14, PW-16, and PW-21), the sureties (PW-12, PW-13, PW-15, PW-17, PW-18, and PW-22), and account holders (PW-23 to PW-27). However, the prosecution failed to establish that Accused No. 3 intentionally forged the documents to withdraw the MACT compensation on behalf of the claimants. The active participation of Accused No. 3 in forging the documents was not conclusively established, and there is no question of cheating, as it was established that the accident occurred, the claimants sustained injuries, and no criminal - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 conspiracy was committed by Accused No. 3, since the other co-accused, who were charged as conspirators, were acquitted. Furthermore, the appellant was neither a party to nor a consenting witness in any of the agreements. There is no oral or documentary evidence to support the claim that the appellant was involved in the fabrication of the sale agreements. 33. The compensation was received by the claimants through their respective bank accounts. There is no incriminating evidence against the appellant regarding the fraudulent opening of bank accounts in the names of the claimants. The claimants have not disputed the opening of these bank accounts or the receipt of compensation through them. 34. Therefore, the Learned Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned judgment of sentence and conviction against Accused No. 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 458, 471 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order convicting Accused No. 3 is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following; - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6845 CRL.A No. 100568 of 2023 ORDER: (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Dharwad, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 458, 471, IPC, and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1