1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.04.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.41/2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioners/accused and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jagaluru in C.C.No.265/2012 dated 07.03.2015.

2. The abridged facts for consideration as borne out from pleadings are as under:

Based on the complaint lodged by one Gurumurthy-PW.5, the Tahsildar of Jagaluru i.e., PW.2 lodged a complaint before the Bilichodu Police against the revision petitioners/accused on 03.02.2012 as per Ex.P1 alleging that the accused persons encroached/closed a cart-road passing through Medaginakere to Channapura. On the strength of Ex.P1, the respondent-police registered an FIR against the accused persons in Cr.No.10/2012 dated 09.02.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ' the KLR Act') as per Ex.P10. Subsequently, PW.9-PSI of the said police laid charge-sheet against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences before the Trial Court.

3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11.

4. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the revision petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 192A of the KLR Act r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, they are directed to undergo 30 days imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.41/2015. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioners and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

6. I have heard Sri. V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. He contended that as per the settled position of law, before initiating proceedings under Section 192A of the KLR Act, the concerned Authority/Revenue Department has to issue a Show Cause Notice to the alleged encroachers/occupiers of government land. In the instant case, it is admitted by PW.2-Tahsildar that no such Show Cause Notice was issued to the revision petitioners/accused before initiating proceedings under Section 192A of the KLR Act. He further contended that on perusal of evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7 and PW.8 i.e., the officers of the Revenue Department, there are severe infirmities with respect to the alleged encroachment. In such circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused under Section 192A of the KLR Act. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition.

8. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed well-reasoned judgments, which do not call for interference. He contended that the evidence of the revenue officers categorically corroborates with the testimony of independent witnesses i.e., PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6, who are the villagers and mahazar witnesses respectively. He contended that PW.2 and the surveyor issued notice before surveying the land in question to the accused persons. In such circumstances, both the Courts below appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for the charges under Section 192A of the KLR Act. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials placed before me.

10. As could be gathered from records, the evidence of PW.2-complainant and the other officers of the Revenue Department depict that there exists a cart road passing through the properties of these accused persons and PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. However, in their evidence, they have also admitted that there exits an alternate road and that the said road is currently in use by the public. Further, PW.2 also deposed in his evidence that there are no such reports and documents to show that these accused encroached/closed the road in question. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.58/2025 dated 15.01.2025, while examining the legality of the proceedings under Section 192A of the KLR Act by referring the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused initiated under Section 192A of KLR Act. The relevant portion is extracted as under:

"4. From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192 A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realise whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, as the criminal prosecution is launched against all these petitioners without affording an opportunity to have their say and in the light of the circular which is passed by the Government, these proceedings cannot be sustained.

5. In W.P. Nos. 3969/2007, 1023/2008 and 3550/2008 the petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of the said circular. However, for the time being they submit they would not press the said point. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the said provision is not considered.

6. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(a) Writ Petitions are allowed.

(b) The impugned orders and proceedings are hereby quashed.

(c) Liberty is reserved to the State or its authorities to comply with the requirement as contemplated in the circular before initiating any action against the petitioners if need arise.

(d) All the contentions urged in the Writ Petitions are kept open to be adjudicated if and when occasion arises.

4. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that prior to initiation of the impugned proceedings, for alleged offence under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007, the respondent had not issued the Show Cause Notice to the petitioners, in the absence of which, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

11. On collocating the findings summarized in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and as admitted by PW.2-Tahsildar in his evidence for the Court question that he has not issued any Show Cause Notice to the accused and before initiating the proceedings, no such opportunities were given to them to explain the factual circumstances to initiate proceedings by lodging Ex.P1 before the respondent-Police. Against this backdrop, I am of the considered view that the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above petition squarely applies to the case on hand. Accordingly, interference is required in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, the revision petition succeeds.

12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The revision petition is allowed.

ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.265/2012, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.41/2015 are hereby set aside.

iii). The revision petitioners/accused are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 192A of KLR Act.

iv). The bail bonds, if any, executed by the revision petitioners/accused shall stand cancelled.

v). The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to them on due identification.

Registry is directed to transmit the records along with certified copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith.