JUDGMENT
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. Crl.A. No. 674/1997 is by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed on accused 1 to 3. Whereas, Crl.R.P. No. 1231/2003 is by accused 1 and 2 assailing the Judgment passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Crl.A. No. 47/1997, dated 31.10.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 476/1993 by the learned J.M.F.C., Shikaripura, dated 19.04.1997.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The police, Shikaripura, charge-sheeted accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 466, 468 and 201 I.P.C., alleging that accused 1- Sumana Bai is the daughter of accused 2-G.S. Mangalore, who are “Havyak Brahmins” by community, with the assistance of accused 3-Chandrashekar obtained false transfer certificate-Ex.P12 from the school and that accused 2-G.S. Mangalore sworn to a false affidavit and produced to the Tahsildar Shikaripur, and obtained a false caste certificate in favour of accused 1 describing accused 1 belongs to “Maleru” caste, which is classified as Scheduled Tribe.
The learned J.M.F.C., Shikaripura, secured the presence of accused 1 to 3 and framed charges for the offences under Sections 120B, 181, 419, 177, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 201 of I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P49. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of accused 1 and 3 is of total denial of the prosecution case. Whereas, accused 2 admitted the fact of swearing an affidavit and denied the prosecution case. But, they did not choose to lead any evidence.
The learned J.M.F.C. for the reasons recorded in his judgment, convicted accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 120B, 181, 177, 466, 471 and 201 I.P.C., and acquitted for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C.
Accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500-00 each, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 months under Section 120-B I.P.C. Accused 1 is further convicted for the offences under Sections 177 and 471 I.P.C., sentencing to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 in respect of each offence, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 5 months. Accused 2 is further convicted for the offence under Section 181 I.P.C., sentencing to undergo S.I. till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500-00, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 months. Accused 3 is further convicted for the offences under Sections 466 and 201 I.P.C., sentencing him to undergo S.I. till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 in respect of each offence. In default to undergo S.I. for a period of 5 months.
Accused 3-Chandrashekar assailing the Judgment of conviction in C.C. No. 476/1993 preferred Crl.A. 27/1997. Whereas accused I and 2 preferred Crl.A. 47/1997. The State being dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence preferred Crl.A. No. 674/1997 before this Court for enhancement of Sentence.
Though accused 3 as well as accused 1 and 2 filed appeals separately as against the Judgment passed in C.C. No. 476/1993 by the learned J.M.F.C., the learned Prl. Sessions Judge instead of disposing of both the appeals by a common Judgment, that for the reasons best known, disposed of both the criminal appeals by separate Judgments, in which Crl.A, No. 27/1997 of accused 3-Chandrashekar was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against him. Whereas, Crl.A. No. 47/1997 of accused 1 and 2 was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., in C.C. No. 476/1993.
Being aggrieved of the Judgment of dismissal passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No. 47/1997, accused 1 and 2 have preferred Crl.R.P. No. 1231/2003 questioning the legality of the sentence.
That as the appeal and the criminal revision petition arise out of the Judgment passed in C.C. No. 476/1993 by the learned J.M.F.C., both the matters were heard together and taken up for disposal.
In view of the fact that accused 3-Chandrashekar was acquitted by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No. 27/1997, the State appeal as well as the criminal revision petition are confined only in respect of accused 1 and 2.
Accused 1-G.M. Sumana Bai is the daughter of accused 2-G.S. Mangalore. Accused 2 was working as a Teacher in the Government High School, M.L. Halli, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga, at the relevant point of time and also working as a Teacher in various schools, whereas accused 3-K.Chandrashekar was working as clerk in the Government High School, M.L. Halli, Sagar taluk, Shimoga. While accused I was studying in the Regional College of Education, Mysore, she came in contact with one M.N. Prahlad, the son-in-law of P.W.1-T.A. Shamashastry, who had married his daughter S.N. Manorama on 13.02.1981 lived upto 16.06.1990. The said M.N. Prahlad wanted to give a divorce so as to marry accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai. It is at that point of time P.W.1-Shamashastry verified the school records, and found that accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai had described her caste as ‘Maleru’ coming within the group of Scheduled Tribes though actually she belongs to “Havyak Brahmin” community. P.W.1 after coming to know about the false declaration given by accused 1, lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 with the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bangalore. The complaint was forwarded to P.W.19-H.M. Mayanna, S.I., for investigation and a case was registered by the Shikaripura Police in Crime No. 77/1992 against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of I.P.C. and forwarded the file. P.W.19-H.M. Mayanna, S.I., of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell took up further investigation, collected various school certificates, transfer certificates as per Exs.P.ll & P12 as well as caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Shikaripura, as per Ex.P23. The investigation disclosed that accused 1 and 2 though belong to “Havyak Brahmin” community, for the purpose of claiming the benefit under the reserved Scheduled Tribes category, accused 2 falsely sworn to an affidavit that accused 1 belongs to “Maleru” community. Accused 2 produced the said affidavit before the Tahsildar, Shikaripura, and obtained a false caste certificate as per Ex.P23 as Schedule Tribes. Accused 1 made use of the caste certificate as if it is a genuine and took admission to the Pre- University Courses and for Degree courses and that she availed scholarship benefit of Rs.399-99 during the year 1986-87.
3. Learned Counsel Sri K.N. Mahabaleshwara Rao for accused 1 and 2 submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the forgery as defined Under Section 465 of I.P.C. When the ingredients of Section 471 of I.P.C. are not made out, the conviction of accused 1 by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 471 of I.P.C is not sustainable. Secondly contended that accused 2 has sworn to an affidavit stating that they belong to “Maleru” community, which is an out caste of Brahmins, is one declared as Scheduled Tribe during the year 1977 itself. Therefore, the caste certificate E:x.P23 issued by the Tahsildar, Shikaripura is a valid one. Therefore, contended that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further contended that the findings of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge is erroneous and not based on facts. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision petition and to dismiss the State appeal.
4. Learned H.C.G.P., Sri Reddy contended that the records obtained by the investigation officer shows that accused 2 is a “Havyak Brahmin” by caste. Even it is clear from Ex.P2 extract of school admission register that the caste of accused 2 is mentioned as “Havyak Brahmin”. Further contended that the school admission register extract Ex.P3 shows that the other two children of accused 2 viz., G.M. Dinesh and G.M. Nayana belong to “Brahmin” community. Further contended that even in the transfer certificate Ex.Pll the caste of accused No. 1-G.M. Sumana Bai is mentioned as “Hindu Brahmin”, whereas in Ex.P12, another transfer certificate the caste of accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai is mentioned as “Hindu (Maleru)”. Further also submitted that all the documents produced in respect of other two children of accused 2 show that they belong to “Havyak Brahmin” community. It is also clear from Ex.P36-affidavit sworn to that accused 2 belongs to “Maleru” caste and on that basis he obtained the caste certificate from the Tahsildar Shikaripura, as per Ex.P23. All these facts clearly establishes that accused 1 and 2 though they belong to “Havyak Brahmin” community, by making false representation and filing the affidavit, managed to obtain a false caste certificate from the Tahsildar and the same has been made use of for the purpose of admission to Pre-University Courses and Degree Courses and that accused I has also availed the benefit of scholarship. Therefore, justified the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and also justified the reasoning of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the sentence insofar as accused 1 and 2 are concerned and to dismiss the criminal revision petition filed by them.
5. In the light of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise;
1) Whether the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, is justified in dismissing Crl.A. No. 47/1997 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Shikaripura, against accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 476/1993?
2) Whether the sentence passed against accused 1 and 2 is adequate, if not liable to be enhanced?
3) What Order?
6. It is an undisputed fact that accused 2-G.S. Mangalore and accused 3-K.Chandrashekar were working as Assistant Teacher and Second Division Assistant respectively in the Government High School, M.L. Halli, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga. It is an admitted fact that accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai is the daughter of accused 2-G.S.Mangalore, whereas accused 2 had other two children namely G.M.Dinesh, son and G.M. Nayana, daughter, who were also studying at that point of time in various schools.
The charge against accused 2-G.S. Mangalore is that he has sworn to false affidavit stating that he belongs to “Maleru” community knowing fully well that he belongs to “Havyak Brahmin ” community and on that basis he obtained caste certificate as per Ex.P23 from the Tahsildar, Shikaripura, stating that accused 1 belongs to Schedule Tribe. As such, accused 1 by furnishing a false information, made use of caste certificate-Ex.P23. The said document is genuine and no reason to believe to be a forged document.
Though accused 3-K.Chandrashekar convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., his Crl.A. No. 27/1997 came to be allowed, acquitting of the charges levelled against him. It is unfortunate on the part of the prosecution that having sought for enhancement of sentence in respect of accused 1 and 2, had not questioned the Judgment of acquittal as against accused 3, which appears to be for the best known reasons.
7. But, for the complaint of P.W.1-T.A. Shamashastry, accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai could have enjoyed the fruits in pursuance of the caste certificate, which she had obtained from the Tahsildar, Shikaripura, and also could have had all other reservation benefits under the Schedule Tribes quota, which came to an end. P.W.l-T.A. Shamashastry’s daughter viz., Manorama was married to one M.N. Prahlad, lecturer in the Regional College of Education, Mysore, on 13.02.1981. Accused 1-G.M. Sumana Bai had taken admission to B.A. Ed. degree course at the Regional College of Education, Mysore, on the basis of the declaration, declaring that she belongs to Schedule Tribe though she actually belongs to “Havyak Brahmin”. It appears that accused 1 having came in contact with M.N. Prahlad, developed love and that M.N. Prahlad wanted to give a divorce to his wife i.e., daughter of P.W.1-Shamashastry and a divorce petition was also came to be filed by M.N. Prahlad. It is at that stage, P.W.1 verified the admission records of accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai, which revealed that she has given a false declaration, declaring herself belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the “Admission Form”, though her brother and sister were studying in other schools having declared themselves as “Havyak Brahmins”. On account of false declaration of the caste by accused 1 in the “Admission Form” P.W.1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bangalore. The same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Shikaripura, and that a case was registered in Crime No. 77/1992 for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of I.P.C. against accused 1 and 2. Thus, on the complaint of P.W.1, investigation process came to be commenced. The Investigation Officer started collecting the extract of the admission register in respect of accused No. 1 from various schools so also her brother and sister viz., G.M. Dinesh and G.M. Nayana respectively.
8. The evidence of P.W.2-H.C.Chandrappa shows that he was working as a Head Master of Model Higher Primary School, Banavasi, during 1982. The investigation officer requested him to issue the school admission register extract in respect of Gurunath Sripathi Bhat (G.S. Mangalore), Dathatreya Sripathi Mangalore and Krishnamurthy Sripathi Mangalore. Accordingly, he issued the extract of the school admission register as per Ex.P2. Ex.P2 reveals that accused 2-G.S. Mangalore and his other 2 brothers viz., Dathatreya Sripathi Mangalore and Krishnamurthy Sripathi Mangalore, belongs to “Havyak Brahmins”. The evidence of P.W.3-H.R.Veerappa shows that he was working as Head Master of Higher Primary School, Hithala village, during 1990-95. On the request of the investigation officer, he issued the school admission register extract as per Ex.P3 in respect of G.M. Dinesh and G.M. Nayana who are the son and daughter respectively of accused 2 and also they have declared their caste as “Hindu Brahmins”. Further in the application form for admission of G.M. Dinesh and G.M. Nayana, accused 2 has declared their caste as “Brahmins’. So also in the transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Higher Primary Boys School, Harishi, reveals that G.M. Dinesh belongs to “Brahmin” community.
Now coming to the evidence of P.W.4-B Mahadevappa, lecturer, Government Pre-University College, Hithala, it shows that the investigation Officer had questioned him for issue of the extract of the admission register. His evidence shows that certain material facts are not found at page Nos. 61 and 63. To that effect an endorsement-Ex.P7 was issued. His evidence also reveals that as per the entries in the original transfer certificate Exs.P8 and P9, the caste of G.M. Dinesh is noted as “Hindu, Brahmin”. So also Ex.P10 reveals that during the relevant period, accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai was also studying in the said School. As per the entries in the transfer certificate Ex.Pll, the caste of accused 1-G.M.Sumana Bai is noted as “Hindu, Brahmin”. Further the evidence of P.W.5-Ananda Swamy, Assistant Teacher, Government High School, Isur, reveals that as per Ex.P14, original application for admission and Ex.P15, copy of the transfer certificate in respect of Dinesh G. Mangalore the declaration made is that he belongs to “Brahmin”. The evidence of P.W.6- S.K. Kummur, lecturer, B.L.R Degree College, Sirigere, reveals that as per the entries found in the admission extract as well as in the application form and the transfer certificate in respect of accused 1- G.M. Sumana Bai, it is declared that she belongs to “Brahmin”. The date of admission for the I year P.U.C. is 16.06.1980.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.7-Chidanandappa, Principal, Pre-University College, Malladihalli, that he issued the admission register extract, which reveals that accused 1 – G.M.Sumana Bai belongs to “Brahmin” community and it is for the period from 1981-82. The evidence of P.W.8-Narayana Murthy, Principal, Government Pre-University College, Anandapuram, shows that as per the entry in the admission register, accused I has declared her caste as “Hindu, Maleru”. In the application for admission to the Government Junior College, Anandapuram, she has declared that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Further it is seen that accused 1 has also obtained the caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Shikaripura, stating that she belongs to “Maleru” caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe. This caste certificate is issued by the Tahsildar on 23.07.1983, whereas in all the school certificates prior to it, accused 1 declared her caste as “Brahmin”. By which, it evidences the fact that accused 1 and 2 belong to “Brahmin” community and are not belong to any of the category described in the Scheduled Tribe.
9. It is in the evidence of P.W.9-S.Mahadevappa that he was working as a Head Master, Government High School, Isur, and that the investigation officer viz., P.W.19-H.M.Mayanna produced 2 transfer certificates i.e., Exs.Pll and P12 and stated that he has issued the transfer certificate on 10.06.1980 as per Ex.Pll, which is original. He has categorically stated that he has not issued any transfer certificate as per Ex.P12 mentioning that accused 1 belongs to Schedule Tribe. Ex.P11 clearly evidences the fact that accused 1 belongs to “Brahmin” community, whereas Ex.P12 document which had come into existence reveals that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He has categorically stated that the caste mentioned in Ex.P12 is different. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.9-S.Mahadevappa makes clear that accused 1 is a “Brahmin” by community and does not belong to “Maleru” community, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe. The evidence of P.W.10-Muregappa shows that he was working as a Head Master, Government High School, Hithala, who speaks of the fact that accused 2-G.S. Mangalore was working as a Teacher. Teaching Hindi as well as Kannada. The evidence of P.W.11 -Vasantha, Principal, Lalbahaddur Arts and Science College, Sagara, speaks about the fact that G.M.Dinesh i.e., the son of accused 2 had declared himself as “Brahmin”. The column in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is noted as nil. The evidence of P.W.12-Basavarajappa, Head Master, Government High School, Madsoor, Lingadahalli, reveals that accused 2- G.S. Mangalore as well as accused 3-K.Chandrashekar were working in the school and also speaks of the fact that Ex.P12 is in the hand-writing of accused 3. That apart, the evidence of P.W.13-S.Sujnana Murthy reveals that accused 1 has declared herself belonging to “Maleru” caste. It is further evident from the evidence of P.W. 14-Nanjundaiah, Tahsildar, Shikaripura, who speaks of the fact that the then Tahsildar A.K. Shankar Lingappa issued the caste certificate as per Ex.P.23 in favour of accused 1 on the basis of the affidavit filed by accused 2. Similarly, the statement of P.W.14-Prabhakar and P.W.15 Sridhar cousins of accused 2 reveals that they belong to “Havyak Brahmin” community. P.W.17-.Manjunath, Accounts Superintendent, Office of the Assistant Director of Public Instructions, Shimoga, has narrated the duties of accused 3-K.Chandrashekar. It is further seen that the investigation officer has obtained the certificates in respect of G.M. Dinesh from the Principal, Sharada Vilas College, Mysore, as per Exs.P24 to 31. It also evidences the fact that they belong to “Havyak” caste. The evidence of P.W.19-H.M.Mayanna, who investigated the episode of securing the false caste certificate on the basis of the affidavit filed by accused 2, clearly establishes the fact that accused 1 and 2 by suppressing the truth, managed to obtain false document and the same were used as genuine for the purpose of securing admission and other benefits. It is no-doubt true that the acquittal of accused 3 is not questioned by the State. But, the facts established that there is conspiracy between accused 1 and 2 which is forthcoming.
10. Section 120B of.I.P.C. reads thus;
(1) 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 upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”
A) To constitute the offence under Section 120B I.P.C., firstly that there must be an agreement between the person who are alleged to conspire.
B) That the agreement should be;
i) for doing of an illegal act or;
ii) for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.
Thus it is clear that for a charge of conspiracy, only an agreement itself is sufficient. In the present case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals that accused 1 and 2 are “Havyak Brahims” by caste. But, accused 2 sworn to the affidavit as “Maleru” community and obtained the caste certificate stating that accused 1 belongs to Schedule Tribe and the said certificate has been used by accused 1 is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 120B of I.P.C.
11. The trial Court considering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted accused 1 for the offences under Sections 177 and 471 I.P.C. Now, it is to be examined whether the ingredients of the above offences are forthcoming.
Section 177 of I.P.C. thus feads;
“Furnishing false information -Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
It is clear that accused 1 having aware of the fact that she belongs to “Havyak Brahmin” by caste furnished false information to the authority and obtained admission by producing false caste certificate. Thereby the ingredients of Section 177 of I.P.C. are proved as against accused 1.
12. Section 471 of I.P.C. thus reads;
“Using as genuine a forged document -Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.”
To constitute an offence under Section 471 of I.P.C., that there must be a false document made wholly or in part by forgery is designated as a forged document. In the present case, caste certificate Ex.P23 is obtained from the lawful authority and used it as genuine, which accused 1 knows for the reason to believe to be a forged document. The ingredients of Section 463 of I.P.C. and the ingredients of Section 471 of I.P.C. are separate and distinct. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel Sri K.N. Mahabaleshwara Rao for accused 1 and 2 that there is no charge of forgery as against accused 1 and thereby the ingredients of Section 471 of I.P.C. are not attracted is without merit and the same cannot be accepted. The very using of a false certificate is an act using it as genuine for which accused 1 is liable.
13. Accused 2 is charged for the offence under Section 181 of I.P.C., which reads as follows:
“False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation- Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes, to such public servant or other person as aforesaid, touching that subject, any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be , liable to fine.”
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully establishes that accused 2 has filed the affidavit as per Ex.P36. Even in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused 2 admitted that he has filed the affidavit. This itself is sufficient to hold that it attracts the ingredients of Section181 of I.P.C. and thereby guilty of the said offence.
14. Considering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it clearly establishes that the commission of the offence by accused 1 and 2 in making use of the caste certificate-Ex.23 for the purpose of securing admission and for other benefits. Thereby, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., which has been affirmed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge does not call for interference.
15. Accordingly, Crl. R.P. No. 1231/2003 filed by accused 1 and 2 is dismissed by allowing the Crl.A. No. 674/1997 of the State.
16. Considering the nature of the offence is an evil act of accused 1 and 2 depriving the real person from claiming the benefits, in my opinion, the sentence imposing the fine appears to be inadequate.
17. Learned Counsel Sri K.N. Mahabaleshwara Rao for accused 1 and 2 submits that now accused 1 is married having a child and she has not taken any Government benefits or joined any service. Therefore, prayed to take a lenient view and justifies the fine amount already imposed by the learned J.M.F.C. Insofar as accused 2 submitted that on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1997 and the Government has reduced all his pensionery benefits, he has not been paid any allowances for the suspension period. Therefore, prayed to take a sympathetic view and justifies the sentence imposed by the learned J.M.F.C.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused 1 having not availed any benefits arising out of the caste certificate issued as per Ex.P23 and accused 2 being a retired person and the Government having not paid any allowances during his suspension period, I feel that if the fine amount were to be enhanced, it would meet the ends of justice.
19. For the foregoing reasons, for the offence under Section 120B of I.P.C., accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500-00 each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
20. For the offence under Section 177 of I.P.C., accused 1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000-00, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
For the offence under Section 471 of I.P.C., accused 1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000-00, less the amount if any already deposited, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
In respect of the offence under Section 181 of I.P.C., accused 2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000-00, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
Lastly, it needs to express dissatisfaction, the manner in which the two appeals have been disposed of without clubbing them though arise out of a Judgment in C.C. No. 476/1993. This is nothing but a sheer negligence on the part of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, who delivered two separate Judgments in Crl.A. No. 27/1997 (ending in acquittal of accused 3), and Crl.A. No. 47/1997 (ending in confirming the conviction of accused 1 and 2). This show, it is a dereliction of duty amounting to judicial impropriety.
The copy of this Judgment shall be kept in the C.R. of the said Judicial Officer.
The copy of this Judgment shall be communicated to the said Judicial Officer wherever she is functioning.