CAV JUDGMENT

Appellant is before this court challenging the order dated 22^nd November, 2018, passed in LGC(T) No.2329 of 2017 by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts, Bengaluru "for short, "the Special Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their status before the special court.

3. The investigating officer submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under section 192(A)(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and under section 447 of Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in CC.No.1132 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga. Thereafter, the case was transferred to special court and registered in LGC(T) No.2329 of 2007 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts at Bengaluru.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused has obtained permission from Department of Mines and Geology for installation of Stone Crusher in his land bearing Sy.No.94/2 of Iyyanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk. Instead of installing Stone Crusher in his land bearing survey No.94/2, the accused has trespassed into the government land bearing survey No.53 situate by the side of land in survey No.94/2 and installed the stone crusher in the Government land. It has been further alleged that the accused was directed to vacate the government land in survey No.53 several times, but he continued to be in occupation of government land over an area of 2 acres and they running a stone crusher. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence. Transferor I Additional Civil judge and JMFC, Chitradurga has framed charges against the accused for alleged commission of offence. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine witnesses as PWs1 to 9 and marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11 and no material objects were marked. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. However, the accused has produced copy of the judgment in Original Suit No.59 of 2013 and the certified copy of the judgment in Regular Appeal No.24 of 2016. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Special Court has convicted the accused for offence under section 192(A)(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under section 447 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine offer Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the Special Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 447 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Sri R Shashidhara, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment passed by the special court is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the established principles of law. He would submit that the case of prosecution is mainly depending upon the complaint alleged by the Deputy Tahsildar. The Deputy Tahsildar lodged, the complaint alleging that the appellant trespassed into the land of government. But the complainant or the Tahsildar, before initiating proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, have not at all followed the procedure contemplated in this behalf. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Government of Karnataka has issued a circular stating that before initiating the proceedings under section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the concerned officer should follow Circular. The investigating officer