SRI K K SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

After hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against accused for the alleged commission of offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused, having understood the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, thirteen witnesses were examined as PW1 to 13 and ten documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded and the accused has totally denied evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against him, but he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo - 4 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 192-A and 192-B of KLR Act. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused preferred appeal before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu in Criminal Appeal No.5011 of 2017. The same came to be dismissed on 26th August 2021. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of both the Courts, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. Submissions on behalf of the Revision Petitioner:

6. Smt. Vinita J.D. Advocate for Sri D. Devendarappa appearing for the Revision Petitioner, submits that the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court is illegal and liable to be set aside. The trial Court had not considered that there was civil dispute pending between the accused, witnesses CWs5 to 12, and the family members of the accused. The trial Court has also not considered the fact that survey was not conducted in the presence of accused as contemplated under Section 192-A of the KLR Act, so also, no show-cause - 5 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 notice was to the accused to file objections within fifteen days. The trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the survey was conducted within four hours, that too, when it is alleged in the complaint that accused has encroached land measuring an extent of 4.20 acre in different survey numbers and different villages. This fact itself is sufficient to hold that only to take revenge or to blacklist the accused, the survey was conducted without intimating the accused. The Investigating officer has not produced the PT-Sheet and the survey was conducted merely based on the report and not on factual aspects. False case has been foisted against the accused which is politically motivated only to defame the dignity of the accused. Learned Counsel would submit that the accused has neither changed the nature nor meddled with the properties. Further, it is submitted that as per the Circular dated 08th September, 2008 in No.RD/674/LGB/2008, the concerned authority has to issue fifteen days' written notice to the concerned who has encroached the Government land, calling explanation and to produce necessary documents. If the alleged encroacher fails to furnish the explanation along with documents to the said notice within the prescribed time, the authority has to visit the spot, conduct mahazar in the presence - 6 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 of villagers and thereafter initiate proceedings under Section 192-A and 192-B of KLR Act. The Investigating officer has not explained anything as to non-compliance of the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, both the Courts have not considered the facts in accordance with law and absolutely there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for alleged commission of offence. She submits that both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. To substantiate her arguments, she has relied on the Judgment of this Court, in the case of SMT. LALITHA SASTRY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS & LEGISLATION AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR. 4520. On all these grounds, she sought to allow revision petition and to acquit the accused. Submissions on behalf of the State:

7. On the other hand, Sri M.R. Patil learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, submitted that as per the Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, the concerned authorities have not issued fifteen days' notice to the accused. He further submits that the prosecution has placed - 7 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 sufficient material to constitute the offence under Sections 192- A and 192-B of KLR Act and also under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence and record in accordance with law and facts, and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of material placed before me, the point that would arise for my consideration is, Whether the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court illegal, erroneous, capricious, and suffer from legal infirmities?

9. I have examined the materials placed before me. It is the case of the prosecution that accused has encroached Government land measuring 0.25 acre in Survey No.137 of Balele village; and 1.90 acre in Survey No.25/1, 1.50 acre in Survey No.2, 0.55 acre in Survey No.23/2 of Kottigeri village of Virajpete Taluk. - 8 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

10. To prove the guilt of the accused thirteen witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 13 and ten documents were marked as per Exhibits P1 to P10.

11. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is necessary to mention here as to essential ingredients of criminal trespass under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. The same reads thus: "(a) Essential ingredients.- This section simply provides punishment for the offence of criminal trespass, which has been defined in Section 441 I.P.C Essential ingredients of criminal trespass are as follows: (i) Entry into or upon property in the possession of another; (ii) If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property; (iii) such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent - (a) to commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of the property. The use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient. - 9 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

12. It is also necessary to mention as to offence under Section 192-A and 192-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which reads as under: "192A. Offences and Penalties.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder whoever commits any of the offence specified in column (2) of the Table below, shall on conviction by a judicial Magistrate of first class for each of such offence be punishable with the sentence indicated in column (3) thereof,- Sl. No. Offence Punishment 1 Unlawfully enters or occupies on any Government land with the intention of holding that Government land. Provided that it shall not apply to cases of Jamma, Bane lands in Coorg District or encroached Government lands regularised or pending for regularization before the Committee constituted under sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act. 2 Cheats and thereby dishonestly creates documents for the purpose of selling, mortgaging or transferring by gift or otherwise of any Government land. 3 Creates a forged document regarding Government lands with an intention to use it for that purpose or to grab such land. 4 Being a Revenue Officer entrusted with the responsibility of reporting unlawful occupation of Government land or initiating action to remove such unauthorised occupiers fails to report or take action to remove such unlawful occupants. Provided that it shall not apply to cases of Jamma, Bane lands in Imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees five thousand. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees five thousand Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. - 10 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 Coorg District or encroached Government lands regularised or pending for regularization before the Committee constituted under sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act: 5 Sells any agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes without getting such land converted or without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. Provided that it shall not apply to cases which are regularized by the Government by formulating a special scheme in this behalf. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. 6 Creates a forged document, regarding conversion of agricultural land for non- agricultural use or authorising the holder of agricultural land to use for non- agricultural purpose. Imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees five thousand. 7 Being a public servant entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining records or entrusted with the responsibility of reporting unlawful conversion to the competent authority fails to report to the competent authority or to initiate action against unlawful conversion of revenue lands for non-agricultural purposes. Provided that it shall not apply to cases which are regularized by the Government by formulating a special scheme in this behalf. 8 Contravenes any lawful order passed under this Act. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. With fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for the first offence and five times the fine for the second and subsequent offences. 192B. Abetment of offences.- Whoever abets any offence punishable by or under this Act or attempts to commit any such offence shall be punished with the penalty provided by or under this Act for committing such offence." - 11 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

13. The prosecution has produced Exhibits P6 to P9 RTC extracts. Exhibit P4 is the complaint filed by the Tahasildar, Virajpete Taluk, which reveals that the Tahsildar has filed complaint that the accused has encroached land measuring

0.25 acre in Survey No.137 of Biloor village, to an extent of

1.90 acre in Survey No.25/1; and 1.50 acre in Survey No.2;

0.55 acre in Survey No.23/2 of Kottigeri village and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 192-A and 192-B of KLR Act and Section 447 of Indian Penal Code.

14. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P6 RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 pertaining to land in survey No.2/2 of Kottigeri Village. The extent of land is 33.87 acre and the same is standing in the name of the Government.

15. Exhibit P7 is the RTC extract for the year 2010-11 pertaining to the land bearing survey No. 25/1 measuring 17.34 acre of Kottigeri Village. The said land is standing in the name of Government. Crops are also mentioned as coffee plantation.

16. Exhibit P8 is the Pahani extract for the year 2010-11 pertaining to land in survey No.137 of Biloor village measuring

2.87 acre. The said land is standing in the name of Government. - 12 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

17. Exhibit P9 is the pahani extract for the year 2010- 2011 pertaining to land in survey No.23 measuring 4.45 acre. The said land is standing in the name of Government.

18. Exhibit P3 is the sketch prepared by Tahsildar, Virajpete in respect of the lands in these three survey numbers. Exhibit P2 is the spot mahazar conducted by police on 10th March 2011. Exhibit P1 is the mahazar conducted on 07th January 2011 by Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and staff along with staff of Police Department. This mahazar is conducted by the officials prior to filing of the complaint-Exhibit P4, i.e. on 05th March 2011.

19. Exhibit P5 is the complaint filed by one Kandera S Muddappa, against the accused addressed to the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu District stating as encroachment of Government land by the accused by leveling the land with the help of JCB. Based on the said complaint, respondents conducted survey of the lands.

20. At this juncture, it is necessary to pertinent to refer to point 15.04 of Chapter XV of the Karnataka Revenue Survey Manual which provides for Rules for the Guidance of Officers and Officials of the Department, which contemplates that - 13 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 whenever encroachment is made by the adjoining holder on the Government land, measurement of encroachment portion is to be made and the plan sent to Revenue authorities so as to take action under Section 94 of the Act.

21. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LALITHA SASTRY (supra) has extracted the Circular dated 08th September, 2008 issued by the Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department. The same reads thus: "¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr 674 J¯ïf© 2008 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.09.2008. ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É «µÀAiÀÄ: MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ***** ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝUÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr vÀAzÀÄ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÉëUÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ ºÉƸÀ CzsÁåAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj d«Ää£À°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ CrAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä MAzÀÄ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß (Opportunity) ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÀUÀArzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ:- - 14 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

1. ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §AzÀ vÀPÀët CAxÀ ªÀåQÛ / ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É D ¸ÀPÁðj d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄwÛÃj JA§ §UÉÎ w½¹, CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ °TvÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ vÀ®Ä¦¸À®Ä w½¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

2. ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝ°è ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ PÁ¯ÁªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ MvÀÄÛªÀj JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAzÀ°è ªÀĺÀdgï §gÉzÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ºÁdjzÀÝ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀrAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

3. MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ°è D zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À £ÉÊdvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ªÀgÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ ¸ÀȶÖvÀ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAzÀ°è MvÀÄÛªÀjzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 192(J)gÀrAiÀÄ°è Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."

22. As per the said Circular, it is clear that the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings or initiated under Section 192A of the Act. In fact, it's a procedure which a show-cause notice used to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within fifteen days. If no objections are received, authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtained their signatures, and - 15 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents, the authorities shall examine the same and only in the event of said documents are found to be fabricated or a duplicate one, to initiate proceedings under the said Section. In fact, the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, i.e. an opportunity is given to the persons to realise whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced, to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution.

23. Relying upon the said Circular, the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioners therein for the offence punishable under Section 192A of the KLR Act, as the concerned authorities have failed to comply with the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka.

24. Law is also well settled that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and is not permitted to act in contravention of the prescribed provisions. Other methods or modes of performance - 16 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusion alteris", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible.

25. In the case on hand, it is admitted that the concerned competent Authority has not issued fifteen days prior notice to the accused as per the Circular issued by the Government. The investigating officer has not whispered anything as to non-compliance of the mandatory requirement. Even in the cross-examination, PW13-Police Inspector, has clearly admitted that he has not enquired with the complainant prior to filing the charge-sheet.

26. PW1- K.M. Chinnappa, Revenue Inspector, PW2- C.N.Thimaiah, PW3-Sri N. Raghu Shetty, Surveyor, PW4-D. Hanumantharaaya, Tahsildar have also not whispered anything as to issuance of mandatory fifteen days’ notice. Before initiating action against the accused, the competent/concerned authority ought to have issued notice to the accused. Non- compliance of said mandatory provisions is fatal to the case of - 17 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 the prosecution. Additionally, before conducting survey and mahazar, the concerned survey authorities also have not issued any notice to the accused. Therefore, the mahazar conducted by the concerned authority and the survey report produced by the prosecution, will be of no help to the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused has encroached the Government lands as alleged by the prosecution.

27. As regards, Exhibits P6 to P9, the RTC extracts having statutory presumption under section 133 of Karnataka Land Avenue Act, 1964, the prosecution witnesses have not whispered anything against the entries in the above RTC extracts. All the RTC pertain to year 2010-11 and the same reveals that the lands are standing in the name of Government. If really, the accused had encroached the Government land in different survey numbers as alleged by the prosecution, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that on which date, month or year, the accused has encroached the disputed lands. Why the concerned Village accountant, who has issued RTC every year, has not observed this encroachment? Why the Village accountant or the Revenue Inspector have not informed the same to the Tahsildar? Why the Village accountant has not taken legal steps against accused though the accused has - 18 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 encroached the alleged Government land? While the Revenue authorities have not taken action against the accused as required under Rules of Karnataka Survey Manual (supra) and Section 94 of the KLR Act? all these has not been explained by the Investigating officer or any other witnesses. On the contrary, the village accountant, who is a responsible officer of the authority who is examined as PW2, has deposed that in the month of January 2011, Kandera family lodged complaint to the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, thereafter the Assistant Commissioner has directed the authorities to submit report, and then only he has visited the spot and found that the land was levelled by using JCB. This conduct of PW2 clearly goes to show that, PW2 being a responsible village officer, has failed in his duties. Why he has failed to discharge his duty as contemplated under the provisions of KLR Act, Rules and Karnataka Revenue Manual, is not forthcoming. If the accused has unauthorisedly cultivated these lands, concerned, the Village Accountant ought to have shown the name of the accused as unauthorised cultivator in the RTC extracts Exhibits P6 to P9 with extent. But the same is not done.

28. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has removed some trees grown in the lands in dispute. But in the - 19 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 RTC extracts, there is no entry as to growing trees or trees grown in the said lands. Even in Exhibit P5-complaint, there is no reference as to the destruction of trees in the disputed lands. The evidence placed before the Court would reveal that the disputed lands are standing in the name of Government, and it has also come in evidence that the physical possession of the lands vest with Government. Hence, the question of encroaching these lands by the accused does not arise. Admittedly, there is dispute between the complainant and the independent witnesses examined before this Court. It has also come in evidence of the prosecution witnesses that dispute between the accused and the complainant in OS No.74 of 2098 before the Senior Civil Judge, Virajpete, is decreed in favour of the accused and as against that, PW6 has preferred appeal before the District Court, Kodagu. It has also come in the evidence of PW6 that CWs5, 7 to 12 have lodged complaint against the accused before the Tahsildar regarding the pathway. The same is also pending consideration. This admission of the prosecution witnesses reveals that all the private and independent witnesses are interested witnesses and they are not in cordial terms with the accused. On the basis of this oral evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion - 20 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022 that the accused has encroached Government lands as alleged by the prosecution, without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of KLR Act, Rules, Karnataka Survey Manual and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, so also, the aforestated Circular of the Government of Karnataka, which was relied upon by the accused.

29. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any legal evidence to come to the conclusion that the accused has encroached the disputed lands as alleged by the prosecution. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate evidence and record in its proper perspective. On re-examination, re-revaluation and reconsideration of the entire evidence on record and in the backdrop of the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Accordingly, I answer the point formulated in the negative.

30. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R

1. Revision petition is allowed; - 21 - CRL.RP No. 915 of 2022

2. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 8th March 2017 passed in CC No.523 of 2011 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet, which is confirmed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajapete in Criminal Appeal No.5011 of 2017 dated 26th August 2011, are here by set aside;

3. Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 192A and 192B of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and for the offence punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code;

4. Fine amount deposited by the accused shall be returned to the accused in accordance with law;

5. Registry to send trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE