Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karsan Bhimabhai Gohil on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARSAN BHIMABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.05.2009, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case
No.30 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State
of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the lower Court is that on 13.03.2007 at about 12:00
hours, near Khandeka Dam, the accused, by making unlawful
assembly and in collusion with each other, due to land
issues, exchanged hot words with the complainant, assaulted
him with iron pipe and wooden stick, fractured on the hands
and legs, threatened him to kill him and abused on his caste
and thereby committed an offence as alleged. Therefore, the
complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the
offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to
be registered as Sessions Case No.30 of 2008. The charge
was framed against the accused person/s. The accused
pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined 11 witnesses before the trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :
Sr. Particulars Exh. Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined No. No. 1. Arjan Kama Gohil 11 2. Arjan Gokal Meriya 14 3. Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq 15 4. Vershi Bhoja Dodiya 19 5. Osman Ibrahim 20 6. Maheshpuri Zaverpuri Goswami 21 7. Martaji Shakraji Ninama 24 8. Nitesh Pratapray Pandya 25 9. Kanaiylal Shakrabhai Amin 27 10. Dr. Devendragiri Kirtigiri Gosai 34 11. Dr. Kishor Asumal Lalchandani 43 4.2 The prosecution has produced 7 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment, which are as under :
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No. No.
1. Complaint 23
2. Panchanama of scene of offence 12
3. Arrest Panchanama 13
4. Yadi for lodging offence 22
5. Weapon Prohibition Notification 26
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
6. MLC Certificate 35
7. Injury Certificate 44, 45
& 46
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court :
8.1 The prosecution has mainly relied on the
complaint, which is produced vide Exh.23, wherein the
complainant – Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq stated that on
13.03.2007 at 11.00 a.m., when he, along with his brother
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Osman, were going towards their field at that time, son of
Bhimabhai Jetha, whose name he did not know, along with
him, there was a lady, whom also he did not know, and
other two unknown persons were there. At that time, all the
aforesaid four people had come towards the complainant and
his brother – Osman and the aforesaid unknown four persons
had threatened the complainant and his brother as to why
they had come at the field as the said field belongs to them
and why they should come to the said field; at that time,
the complainant and his brother informed that the said field
belongs to them and that they will come over there; and that
thereafter the aforesaid unknown four people got excited and
started abusing the complainant, to which, the complainant
stopped them from abusing, but at that moment, the
complainant was assaulted with iron tommy and the wooden
stick (a thick wooden stick) on his left hand wrist, on theleft hand side of his head, right hand fist and on left leg. At
that time, his brother – Osman intervened and thereafter the
aforesaid four persons gave threats to his life. Thereafter, the
complainant was sent to the hospital for treatment and the
complaint was filed when the complainant was in the
hospital.
8.2 The complainant – Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq has been
examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.15, wherein he states that on
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
the day of the incident, he, along with his brother – Osman,
had gone to his field and over there, accused No.2 –
Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia, along with Lakhubhai
Bhimabhai, was present and there was one another lady, who
is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, were there; and that they
were putting fence on the said property; and that the
complainant asked them as to why they were placing fence,
at that time, the aforesaid Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia
(accused No.2) and Lakhubhai Bhimabhai and that unknown
lady, who is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, had stated that
the complainant that he had got to do nothing with the said
field and so saying, they started assaulting the complainant.
Accused No.2 – Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia had assaulted
the complainant with an iron pipe on the left hand and he
also assaulted with a stick on the right hand and left leg.
Lakhubhai Bhimabhai had assaulted the complainant on the
shoulder. At that time, the brother of the complainant viz.,
Osman intervened and accused No.2 had threatened the
complainant’s life. The fact remains that the name of
Lakhubhai Bhimabhai is not stated in the complaint and in
the complaint, the complainant talks about being assaulted
with iron tommy and wooden log. In the deposition before
the Court, he states that accused No.2 had assaulted him
with a pipe and stick. Therefore, there is clear contradictions
in the statement given by the complainant at the time of
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
filing the complaint and deposition before the Court with
respect to the weapon that was allegedly used at the time of
the offence.
Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant states
that he was not knowing as to who the said persons were
and who had assaulted him; and that who were the four
persons who had assaulted him, but in the deposition before
the Court, the complainant states that he has been assaulted
by three persons and had given the name of accused No.2 –
Rameshbhai, Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of
Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai.
8.3 The brother of the complainant viz., Osman
Ibrahim, who is alleged to be present with the complainant
at the time of offence, has been examined as P.W.5, vide
Exh.20. He has, in his deposition, stated that at the time of
the alleged offence, he was present with the complainant and
accused No.1 – Karshan Bhimabhaibhai Gohil was holding a
pipe and accused No.2 – Rameshbhai was holding a stick and
accused No.1 – Karshanbhai has assaulted the complainant
with a pipe on his head and accused No.2 – Rameshbhai has
assaulted the complainant with a stick on his hand, on his
shoulder and on the legs. He has also stated that the police
had taken his statement and they had initially gone to
Vagad Welfare Hospital at Rapar and thereafter had gone to
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Bhachau. He has also stated that the field i.e. place of
offence, has already been sold by him. He does not have any
document to prove that the said property belongs to him and
he has also stated that the complaint was taken at Rapar
Government Hospital and the said complaint was given by
his brother i.e. the complainant (Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq); and
that he was present at the time when the said complaint
was taken; and that he and his brother i.e. the complainant
– both had narrated the facts in the said complaint. He has
stated that from his birth, he has stayed at Village : Rapar;
and that the accused are also staying at the same village;
and that he knew the accused even before the alleged
incident. He has also denied the fact that at the time when
the said complaint was mentioned, the names of any accused
were not given by them.
If his deposition is taken into consideration, the
said deposition is contrary to what has been stated in the
complaint. In the complaint, the complainant stated that four
unknown persons were present at the time of incident, who
had assaulted him; and that though, as per his version, at
the time of offence, accused No.2 – Rameshbhai,
Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of Lakhubhaibhai
Bhimabhaibhai were present, he does not give the name of
Lakhubhai Bhimabhai.
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
8.4 The prosecution has thereafter produced the
panchanama of scene of offence vide Exh.12 and the arrest
panchanama vide Exh.13.
The panch witness – Arjanbhai Kamabhai Gohil,
who was the panch witness of panchanama at Exhs.12 and
13, has been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.11. He has turned
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has examined Arjanbhai Gokalbhai
Meriya as P.W.2, vide Exh.14, who was the panch witness of
the panchanama of scene of offence. He has also turned
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has also examined Vershibhai
Bhojabhai Dodiya, who was the panch witness of panchanama
at Exh.13 i.e. the arrest panchanama. He has turned hostile
and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.5 The prosecution has examined the Head Constable
viz., Maheshpuri Zaverpuri Goswami as P.W.6, vide Exh.21,
who had taken the statement of the complainant in the
hospital, which is produced vide Exh.22.
The prosecution has examined Martaji Shakraji
Ninama, A.S.I., Rapar, as P.W.7, vide Exh.24, to whom the
doctor has given the telephonic intimation.
The officer working at the Collector Office viz.,
Nitish Pratapbhai Pandya has been examined as P.W.8, vide
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Exh.25 with respect to the notification under the Bombay
Police Act, which is produced vide Exh.26.
The Investigating Officer i.e. the Dy.S.P.- in-charge
of Bhachau Division viz., Kanaiylal Shakrabhai Amin has
been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.27. In his deposition, he
has stated that in the complaint, it is stated that four
persons had assaulted the complainant, but at the time of
investigation, it transpires that the assault was by using an
iron tommy as a weapon and it is also true that the alleged
weapon has not been recovered. He has also stated that the
complainant has sold the land to one Naranbhai
Mahadevbhai; and that on the date of the incident, the
complainant did not own any land; and that the land, on
which the alleged offence took place, was given to the
brother of the accused for cultivation. He has also stated
that the complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the
accused against the complainant; and that under his
investigation, it was also found that the complainant had
assaulted the accused by pelting stones; and that the
complainant had trespassed on the field in question.
8.6 The Medical Officer, CHC Rapar viz.,
Dr.Devendragiri Kirtigiri Gosai has been examined as P.W.10,
vide Exh.34. The history given by the complainant to the
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
said doctor states that he was assaulted by the stone and a
stick. The certificate to that effect has been produced vide
Exh.35; and that the names of the accused were not given to
the said doctor.
The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Kishor
Ashumal Lalchandani as P.W.11, vide Exh.43, who was the
Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare Hospital. The complainant
also does not give the names of the accused to the said
doctor. The certificate issued by the said doctor is produced
vide Exh.44.
It has also come on the record that the
complainant was admitted for 15-20 days in the said hospital
for treatment. The history given to the said doctor was that
the complainant was assaulted by a stick and by an iron
pipe. Therefore, there are lot of contradictions in the evidence
that has been presented by the prosecution. The complainant
in the complaint states that he has been assaulted by an
iron tommy and by a stick, by unknown persons. In his
deposition, he has stated that he has been assaulted by
accused No.2 – Rameshbhai with an iron pipe and a stick.
The brother of the complainant, who has been examined as
P.W.5 (Exh.20) states that accused No.1 – Karshanbhai
assaulted the complainant with a pipe and accused No.2 had
assaulted the complainant with a stick. The Medical Officer
who has been examined as P.W.10 (Exh.34) states that the
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
history given to the said doctor stated that the complainant
was assaulted by pelting stones and by a stick; and that
the history given to the Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare
Hospital (P.W.11, vide Exh.43) states that the complainant
was assaulted with a stick and with an iron pipe. Therefore,
there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the
complainant, and the prosecution has not been able to prove
that any such incident had taken place. Moreover, though the
complainant states the name of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, who
was allegedly present at the time of offence, no offence
against the said person is registered.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
Court below was completely justified in passing impugned
judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi
V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the view of the
trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration
of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by
the trial court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision of
which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
“The powers of the High Court in an appeal from
order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and
reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and
379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal
against the order of conviction. But as a rule of
prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should
give proper weight and consideration to the view of
the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the
witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit
of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in
justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge
who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is
settled law that if the main grounds on which the
lower Court has based its order acquitting the
accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same
cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged ordemolished, the High Court should not disturb
the order of acquittal.”
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
14. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge:
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”,
“distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”,
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal
than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption ofPage 17 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.”
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
acquitted the respondent/s – accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:47 IST 2026
