Rathnakala, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

2. The respondent/Police charge sheeted the revision petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

3. The allegation was that the petitioner/accused, a married person, suppressing the said fact advertised through a daily newspaper for a prospective bride. Thus he came in contact with CW-1/Smt. Bhagyamma, the mother of CW-2/Roopashree. He persuaded Bhagyamma to sell her site and entered into an agreement of sale with CW-4/Smt.Renukamma on 11.6.2007. He received the advance amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the proposed purchaser with the consent of Bhagyamma towards the expenses of his proposed marriage with Roopashree, but subsequently retreated from the proposal to marry the girl.

4. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs-1 to 8 and marked documents Exs. P1 to P7. The accused took the stand of total denial and denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He did not opt to adduce defence evidence. The Trial Court after giving its audience to both parties found the accused/petitioner guilty in respect of the offence under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to PW-1 with default clause.

5. The appeal preferred by the aggrieved accused against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, went in vain.

6. Sri. H.H. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused while assailing the judgments of the courts below submits that, assuming for a while, entire case presented by the prosecution as true and correct, then also it fails to bring home the guilt of accused under Section 420 of IPC. The so-called newspaper through which the petitioner gave advertisement by itself was not proved in accordance with law. There was no clinching evidence establishing that he induced PW-1 to sell her property to CW-4 and there was nothing to establish that the sale amount or the advance amount was received by the petitioner. The courts below have acted upon the suppositions to convict the petitioner, without taking notice of the admissions emerging during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. That has resulted in great injustice to him and the impugned judgments being erroneous are liable to be set aside under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Sri. S. Chandrashekaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/ State in reply would submit that the petitioner has signed sale agreement as a witness. The courts below have rightly upheld the case of the prosecution, which is proved by the evidence of complainant/CW-1/PW-1 and her daughter/CW-2/PW-2; CW-4/PW-4, who is the purchaser of the property and CW-5/PW-5, who is the husband of CW-4. The courts below have not fallen into any error which needs to be interfered in excise of revision jurisdiction of this Court.

8. In the light of the above submission and on perusal of the lower court records, the sole point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the judgments of the court below are not founded on the evidence borne on record?"

9. Manifestly to prove the first portion of the charge that the accused through a paper advertisement sought for a suitable bride, etc., the prosecution relied on a piece of newspaper/Ex. P3, which reads thus:

10. Basically this piece of evidence was inadmissible since the entire news paper was not produced. As such, the newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a Newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. In that view of the matter, the courts below could not have taken judicial notice of the news item in Ex. P3. The nexus between mobile phone with sim No. 98455 64