STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR, vs D M DEVARAJ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B S PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. D M DEVARAJ
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
FDA, DISTRICT TREASURY,
CHITRADURGA,
R/O 5TH CROSS, JCR EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA,
NATIVE DEVREDDYHALLY
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. UMESH P.B.,ADVOCATE)
CRL.A FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE SPL.P.P.
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.06.2015 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(P.C.A.)
NO.9/2011 ON HIS FILE ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7,13(1)(d)
R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND ETC.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Appellant/Lokayukta has preferred this appeal
against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2015
passed in Special Case (PCA) No.9/2011 by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short, 'the
Trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Police
Inspector, Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga laid charge sheet
against the accused for the offence under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. It is alleged by the
prosecution that, the complainant was working as a
Kannada Educator at District Institute of Education and
Training, Chitradurga since 15.12.2008, but the annual
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
increments have not been granted to him, therefore he
had given an application to the Principal of the said
Institute, in turn, the Principal got prepared the bill and
forwarded the same to the District Treasury, Chitradurga,
wherein the accused being the case worker by working as
F.D.A. in the District Treasury, demanded bribe of
Rs.3,000/- from the complainant on 28.12.2010, but when
the complainant pleaded his difficulty, the accused
reduced the bribe amount for Rs.2,000/- and in pursuance
of that demand, on 29.12.2010 at about 4.25 pm, in front
of Canara Bank, P.B. Road, Chitradurga, the accused
accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the
complainant, wherein the accused was trapped by the P.I.,
Lokayukta. Thereafter, the I.O. has investigated the case
and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the
alleged offence.
4. On hearing, the Trial Court has framed the charges.
Same were read over and explained to the accused.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 8
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8 and 33
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33 and 13 material
objects were marked as MOs.1 to 13. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. However, accused has denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and has filed his written
statement along with one document. However, he did not
come forward to adduce the defence evidence. Having
heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has
acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
acquittal, the Lokayukta has preferred the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the order of acquittal is illegal, invalid, erroneous, and
contrary to law and evidence on record. The trial Judge
has ignored the evidence of PW2 who is a shadow witness.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
His evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW1
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money. The
trial Judge erred in not drawing the presumption under
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
learned Special Judge has failed to consider the evidence
of PW6-Mallanna, the Principal of DIET, Chitradurga, who
has given evidence that he forwarded the bill pertaining to
PW1. The learned Special Judge has committed a serious
error in not considering the evidence of PW1 and material
produced which clearly proves the commission of offence.
The learned Special Judge failed to consider that the
respondent himself is not disputing the acceptance of
money and his explanation is that complainant borrowed
money and same is returned by the complainant. Just by
assumption and presumptions, the trial Court has
acquitted the respondent which is liable to be set aside.
The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record in accordance with law and facts and accordingly
sought for allowing this appeal.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the
respondent submits that, the Trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the Karnataka Lokayukta has
made out grounds to interfere with the judgment
of acquittal?
(2) What order?
9. My answer to the above points as under:
Point No.1: In Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
10. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is
necessary to mention as to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D.
SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9
SCC 581. The principles governing exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment
of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure are, the acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence; the appellate
court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled
to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; the
appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record; if the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
the ground that another view was also possible; and the
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which
can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
The interference by an appellate court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour
of the accused has to be exercised only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; the same is based
on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on
record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record.
11. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence of all the
prosecution witnesses. On examination of the entire
evidence on record, the Trial Court has observed in
paragraphs 18 and 19 as under:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
" 18. Having regard to the rival contention as taken by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and
the defence counsel for the accused, the evidence placed
on record it requires to be appreciated to find out whether
the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused
by put forth the cogent, corroborative and acceptable
evidence to probabalize that the accused being a
government servant by working as F.D.A. in the District
Treasury Office, Chitradurga made a demand for bribe
from the complainant as narrated at Ex.P.17 of the
complaint as filed by him and received by PW.8 being an
I.O. who recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.27 and also he
conducted the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P.16 and
the trap mahazar as per Ex.P.15 in the presence of PW.2
and PW.3 being the panch witnesses have been secured
and also for having held the demonstration in their
presence by applied the phenolphthalein powder upon
MO.1 of four currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
each as produced by PW.1 being the author of the
complaint, who recorded the conversation in the voice
recorder as where the conversation has been transferred
to MO.2 of C.D. cassette which transpired the
conversation as the accused who demanded the bribe
from him to do the official favour as narrated at Ex.P.17
of the complaint as already stated supra, keeping in view
of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 as they being the
material witnesses for the prosecution insofar as the
allegations made at Ex.P.17 of the complaint as filed by
PW.1 have been received by PW.8 being an I.O. and also
recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.27. The prosecution in all
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
examined PW.1 to PW.8 and also got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.33 to prove the guilt against the accused that the
accused being a government servant by working as F.D.A.
in the District Treasury Office, Chitradurga wherein he
demanded for bribe from the complainant by working as a
Kannada Teacher Educator at DIET as wherein he
approached the accused being a government servant by
working as F.D.A. in the District Treasury Office,
Chitradurga for passing of the bill in respect of his
increments as narrated at Ex.P.17 of the complaint. PW.8
being an I.O. who received the complaint at Ex.P.17 and
also recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.27 and secured PW.2
and PW.3 being the panch witnesses and so also held the
demonstration in their presence by conducted the
entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P.16 for having produced
MO.1 of currency notes by PW.1, as these currency notes
have been applied with phenolphthalein powder at the
time of demonstration as held by him. PW.2 being the
shadow witness who accompanied with PW.1 to the scene
of crime of Canara Bank situated in Chitradurga town, as
where the accused who received MO.1 of the tainted
currency notes from him as narrated at Ex.P.15 of the
trap mahazar have been conducted by PW.8 in his
presence and also in the presence of PW.3 being the co-
panch witness have been secured, but on close scrutiny of
the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 coupled with the evidence
of PW.1 insofar as the facts narrated at Ex.P.17 of the
complaint are runs contradictory to each other and the
same has been seen in their evidence for the prosecution
and also their evidence are runs contradictory to the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
evidence of PW.8 being an I.O. who laid the charge sheet
against the accused, as wherein major investigation was
done by him by conducted the trap mahazar as per
Ex.P.15 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 as well as the
raiding members viz. head constables CW.15 Samadappa,
CW.14 Gopinath and police constables CW.9 Ananda,
CW.10 Srinivasa, CW.11 Syed Swaleha, CW.12 Prakash
Reddy, CW.13 Thippeswamy and this PW.8 who also
secured Ex.P.24 of the sanction issued by PW.5 to
prosecute the case against the accused, but PW.1 being
the author of the complaint at Ex.P.17 and many
discrepancies and contradictions appears in his evidence
which runs contradictory to the evidence of PW.8 being an
I.O. and so also the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 as they
being the material witnesses and also being the panch
witnesses have been secured, as in their presence, that
PW.8 being an I.O. who conducted entrustment mahazar
as per Ex.P.16 and also be applied phenolphthalein
powder upon MO.1 of the currency notes have been
produced by PW.1 as these currency notes have been
tendered by PW.1 to the accused at the scene of crime as
narrated at Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar have been
conducted by PW.8 as where the raid has took by him.
PW.1 being the author of the complaint at Ex.P.17, but he
did not specifically stated the facts narrated at Ex.P.17 of
the complaint and also the facts narrated at Ex.P.16 of
the entrustment mahazar as well as the trap mahazar at
Ex.P.15, though these mahazars have been conducted by
PW.8 in his presence and also in the presence of PW.2
and PW.3. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PW.2 and
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
PW.3 insofar as the facts at Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar
and Ex.P.16 of the entrustment mahazar have been
conducted by PW.8 in their presence and also in the
presence of PW.1 being the author of the complaint at
Ex.P.17, are contradicts to each other and further
contradicts to the evidence of PW.8, as where the major
investigation was done by him and also he has been
secured Ex.P.24 of the sanction to prosecute the case
against the accused. The evidence placed on record shows
that PW.2 being the panch witnesses who accompanied
PW.1 to the scene of crime of the Canara Bank situated in
Chitradurga town as where the raid took by PW.8 who led
the team consisting the raiding members as where the
accused who demanded the bribe from the complainant
as wherein he tendered the bribe amount of MO.1 of four
currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each and the
accused who received MO.1 of the currency notes from
the complainant to show the aforesaid official favour as
narrated in Ex.P.17 of the complaint. Thus, it is contended
by the prosecution that the accused who demanded and
received the bribe of MO.1 of currency notes from the
complainant and in this regard, PW.8 being an I.O. who
conducted the trap mahazar as per Ex.P.15 and also
subjected to photos at Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.14 in the presence
of PW.2 and PW.3 during the course of trap mahazar, but
before appreciating the evidence placed on record by the
prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, it is
relevant to refer to certain decisions. In a decision
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1452, at para 10, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed thus:
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
“.. Court should not be oblivious of the need for
caution and circumspection bearing in mind that
one can conceive of cases, where an honest and
strict Government official may be falsely
implicated by a vindictive person to whose
demand, for showing favours, or for according a
special treatment by giving go-by to the rules,
the official refuses to yield.”
In a decision reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 2068, the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held thus:
“The act, for doing which the bribe is received
or paid, must therefore, have some connection
with the office, which the public servant
receiving the bribe is holding or must be one in
regard to which, the person giving the bribe can
reasonably believe that it could be performed by
the public servant receiving the bribe.”
19. Keeping in mind of these principles laid down in the
above decisions, let me scrutinize the evidence placed on
record by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the
accused that he being a government servant by working
as F.D.A. in the District Treasury Office, Chitradurga.
PW.1 who has filed the complaint as per Ex.P.17 against
the accused and though he has stated about the demand
and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, but he has
admitted in the course of cross- examination by the
defence counsel that he did not approach the concerned
superior authority in the District Treasury Office as where
the accused alleged to demand the bribe from him for
passing the bills in respect of his increments as narrated
in Ex.P.17 of the complaint as received by PW.8 being an
I.O. who recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.27 and also be
conducted the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P.16 and
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
also be conducted the trap mahazar as per Ex.P.15 in the
presence of PW.2 and PW.3 as where the raid has been
done by him. In the course of cross-examination by the
defence counsel, it has elicited from PW.2 that in the
premises of Canara Bank, while conducted Ex.P.15 of the
trap mahazar by PW.8, but he did not secure the
documents pertaining to the complainant from the District
Treasury, but the Treasury Officer brought the documents
pertaining to the complainant around 5.30 p.m. to the
office of Lokayukta and handed over the same to the P.I.
It has also elicited from PW.2 and PW.3 that while they
returned to the office of Lokayukta after the trap process,
at about 6.30 p.m., that they subscribed their signatures
to Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 of the mahazars in the Lokayukta
office itself. Therefore a doubt arises as to the
genuineness of the seizure of the documents at Ex.P.22 of
the bill of District Treasury Token, Ex.P.23 of the
objection of the District Treasury and Ex.P.25 of the
arrears of salary bill for the month of November 2010,
Ex.P.28 of the special leave granted by the D.D.P.I. to the
complainant for a period of 18 days, Ex.P.29 of the official
memorandum dated 29.1`2.2010, deduction particulars,
arrears of salary particulars and Ex.P.30 of the script of
the voice recorder conversation. The prosecution has not
placed any material to show that PW.1 who had
approached the District Treasury Officer in relating to the
accused demanded bribe from him to do the official
favour for passing of the bill in respect of his increments
as narrated at Ex.P.17 of the complaint as filed by him
and also the prosecution has failed to prove the act for
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
which the bribe was received by the accused as narrated
at Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar as conducted by PW.8 in
the presence of PW.2 and PW.3. The defence counsel has
elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4 Padiyappa being
the District Treasury Officer that Ex.P.22 of the token
document has reached his office through Corporation
Bank on 29.12.2010, therefore they sanctioned the bill on
30.12.2010, but the accused has not raised any objection
to the bill of the complainant and also he was not the case
worker of the said bill. It has also elicited in the cross-
examination of PW.6 Mallanna being the Principal of DIET
that the complainant was not a degree holder of M.A.,
M.Ed, as such the letter correspondence took in between
his office and the office of DDPI, wherein the arrears of
increments relating to the complainant was withheld as a
technical problem and therefore the arrears bill of the
complainant was not prepared and the authorities of
District Treasury Office has raised objection in this regard
as per Ex.P.23, therefore for compliance, they have
corrected the bill and sent the bill to the District Treasury
on 28.12.2010 and the said bill reached the District
Treasury on 29.12.2010. Having regard to all these
answers given by PW.4 and PW.6, it is necessary to states
that the role of accused in passing of the bill in respect of
the increments of the complainant is doubtful. Moreover
PW.2 and PW.3 have subscribed their signatures to
Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar in the Lokayukta office,
though the mahazar has been conducted at the scene of
crime of Canara Bank situated in Chitradurga town and
the same has been seen in the evidence of PW.2 and
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
PW.3 being the panch witnesses have been secured. The
prosecution should prove all the vital particulars of its
theory which are connected with the trap incident as
narrated at Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar conducted by
PW.8 being an I.O., but the prosecution has failed to
prove the very basis of the trap incident as narrated at
Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar as conducted by PW.8 being
an I.O. in the presence of PW.2 being the shadow witness
and also in the presence of PW.3 being the co-panch
witness have been secured, after the receipt of the
complaint at Ex.P.17 as filed by PW.1 and also produced
MO.1 of the currency notes during the demonstration has
been held by PW.8 in their presence. Moreover the
evidence placed by the prosecution is founds to be
discrepancies and suffers from various inconsistencies
inasmuch as the evidence of PW.1 being the author of the
complaint at Ex.P.17 and also he had extended the signal
as instructed by PW.8 being an I.O. during the course of
demonstration has been held by him in the presence of
PW.2 and PW.3, as where the signal extended by him by
wiping his face by means of a handkerchief as narrated
the facts at Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar has been
conducted, but on close scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1,
PW.2 and PW.3 coupled with the evidence of PW.8, it
founds to be discrepancies and contradictions to each
other insofar as the facts narrated at Ex.P.17 of the
complaint and also the facts narrated at Ex.P.15 of the
trap mahazar and Ex.P.16 of the entrustment mahazar.
On careful appreciation of the evidence placed on record
for the prosecution, it can be said that the theory as put
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
forth by the prosecution, it appears to be clouds of doubt
though the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.8 and
got marked Ex.P.17 of the complaint and also got marked
Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar and Ex.P.16 of the
entrustment mahazar as conducted by PW.8, as these
mahazars are the vital parts of the prosecution, but the
evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are founds to be discrepancies
and contradictory to each other insofar as narration of the
facts at Ex.P.17 of the complaint as filed by PW.1 and the
prosecution has failed to prove its case by placing the
cogent, convincing, corroborative and acceptable evidence
in relating to the vital parts of its theory connected with
the trap incident as discussed supra, keeping in view of
the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 coupled with the evidence
of PW.8 who laid the charge sheet against the accused.
On considering the background of the facts, it can be said
that there are substances in the contention of the defence
counsel that PW.1 who had filed a complaint at Ex.P.17
before PW.8 being an I.O. who recorded the FIR as per
Ex.P.27 and also that PW.1 who had approached the
accused for passing of the bill in respect of his increments
as narrated at Ex.P.17 of the complaint, but by keeping
vengeance against him, that he had filed the complaint as
per Ex.P.17 by set up a theory by making him to a
scapegoat. The evidence given by PW.1 being the
complainant who has filed the complaint at Ex.P.17 and
PW.2 being the shadow witness and PW.3 being the co-
panch witness have been secured and PW.8 being P.I.,
Lokayukta are inconsistencies and discrepancies with each
other and the same does not inspire the confidence in the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
mind of the court. In the totality of the aforesaid evidence
of the prosecution, makes it clear that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt against the accused with beyond
all reasonable doubts by placing cogent, convincing and
acceptable evidence that the accused was demanded
bribe from the complainant as narrated the facts at
Ex.P.17 of the complaint and also the facts narrated at
Ex.P.15 of the trap mahazar as conducted by PW.8 in the
presence of PW.2 and PW.3. In view of the aforesaid
reasons and findings, I am of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the
accused for the alleged offence. Therefore the accused is
deserving for acquittal. Accordingly I answer the point
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative."
12. On re-appreciation/re-consideration/re-examination
of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or
factual error committed by the trial Court. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in
mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57230
CRL.A No. 1286 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010507522015
Regarding Point No.2
13. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed .
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82