ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the State. The appellant, during the relevant time, was the C Collector of Customs working at Sahar Airport, Mumbai. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342 and 354 of the Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him and aggrieved by the same, the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before the High Court and the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs 25,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the acquittal of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 342 IPC was approved. 3. The case against the appellant was initiated on the basis of an information furnished by PW 1, the complainant, who was a member of the e Indian Revenue Services and who was undergoing training as a Probationary Officer. Her training was for a period of six months and on the last date of the training i.e. 21-3-1992, she visited the office of the Addl. Dy. Collector of Customs, Sahar International Airport at Mumbai. The allegation of the complainant was that the appellant, who was the Collector of Customs and Excise, insisted on her accompanying him to his office at Air Cargo Complex to give some information relating to the files of some "revenue drives". PW 1, the complainant, accompanied the accused to his chamber at Air Cargo Complex. The allegation was that, she was molested by the appellant while she was in his chamber. According to her, the accused led her to his chamber and switched on a VCR and displayed a film relating to seizure of some contraband gold and when this film was being viewed, the complainant was seated on a sofa and the appellant was standing behind and thereafter the appellant caught hold of her hand and pushed her down in the sofa. She also alleged that though she wanted to get out of the room, the appellant caught hold of her and pushed her down and put the entire weight of his body on her and made a statement that he wanted to have sexual relationship with her. The complainant came out of the room and she wanted to get back to her hostel and when she came to the exit point and desired to have a taxi and at that time the official car was already there at that place and the appellant pushed her inside the car and thereafter she was taken in the car and because of her insistence she was dropped at the railway station. It was alleged that while the complainant was in the car the appellant touched her body and thereby outraged her modesty. 4. The complainant thereafter reached her room in the hostel and contacted PW 7, a co-trainee, who was staying in the same hostel and at 9.30 in the night she telephonically contacted PW 10, the Director General of National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics and gave the details of the entire incident that had happened in the office of the appellant. The complainant also had given information to her husband who was working at Hyderabad. On 23rd she gave a detailed written complaint and on the basis of the information a case was registered against the appellant. 5. After investigation, a charge-sheet was med. On the side of the prosecution PW 1 to 12 were examined and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the appellant not guilty by disbelieving the prosecution case and also the evidence of P.W. 1, the complainant. 6. The main reason attributed by the learned Magistrate to acquit accused was that the details of the incident relating to outraging her modesty were not mentioned in the complaint given by PW 1, the complainant. It was held that after the incident there were deliberations by the complainant with her superior officers, husband and friends and a lawyer and the version given by the complainant could have been a motivated and coloured version and there was much delay and this was sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1. It was held that after the incident there were deliberations by the complainant with her superior officers, husband and friends and a lawyer and the version given by the complainant could have been a motivated and coloured version and there was much delay and this was sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1. As regards the details of the incident also, the Magistrate refused to believe the version given by the prosecution as the witnesses who could have witnessed the incident were not examined and a specific mention was made to the non-examination of the driver of the car wherein the appellant and the complainant were driven to the railway station and the peon who was working in the office. Certain contradictions brought out in the evidence of PW 1 were also made use of by the Magistrate to disbelieve the prosecution of case. 7. The High Court, on a reappreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the view taken by the Magistrate was perverse and unreasonable, and held that the prosecution was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence punishable under Section 354 was made out. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the view taken by the Magistrate was reasonable and the witnesses were rightly disbelieved and the prosecution suppressed the evidence and material witnesses and the High Court should not have interfered with the finding entered by the learned Magistrate. It was also pointed out by the appellants counsel that there was delay in lodging the complaint before the police and there was evidence to the effect that the complainant was deliberately making a concocted story to foist a false case against the appellant. Counsel also pointed out that the witnesses were not examined and thereby the appellant was denied the opportunity of proving his defence effectively and the benefit of absence of the evidence of these witnesses should have been given to the appellant. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the reasons given by the Magistrate were not sustainable and the High Court rightly reversed the same. 8. We have carefully considered the evidence given by the prosecution, especially the evidence of PW 1. PW 1, being the sole witness to prove the actus reus, her evidence should receive some careful consideration. 8. We have carefully considered the evidence given by the prosecution, especially the evidence of PW 1. PW 1, being the sole witness to prove the actus reus, her evidence should receive some careful consideration. At the outset, we find no reasons for her to file a false complaint against the b appellant. She made a complaint about the incident that had happened on the last date of her training. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that, the fact that the complainant immediately contacted her superior officer, PW 10, the Director General, who was stationed in Delhi, is indicative of the fact that she must be acting hand in glove with the Director General to find fault with the appellant. But we do not find any material to subscribe to this view. The complainant, being a trainee officer, would naturally look forward to get some help from her superior officer, PW 10, and she gave a detailed narration of the incident that had happened. It was at about 9.30 at night the complainant called him on telephone and gave a detailed version. Of course, the evidence of PW 10 as regards the incident may be hearsay, nevertheless it to a fact that on the very same night the complainant called and informed d about the incident, probabilise the prosecution case. The complainant was working at a place where her husband or near relatives were not available and naturally she should have taken some time to decide as to what course of action is to be taken and the time taken for filing the complaint is not much. The contention of the appellant is that there is much delay in filing the complaint as it is sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case, but we do not think so. The complainant as PW 1, has given the detailed version of the incident and even though she was cross-examined at length nothing could be brought out to discredit her version. Some minor contradictions have been brought out, and they are not of serious nature. In her complaint she has stated that she vomited while she was in the chamber of the appellant. Some minor contradictions have been brought out, and they are not of serious nature. In her complaint she has stated that she vomited while she was in the chamber of the appellant. At the time of giving evidence she stated that saliva had come out of her mouth, and it is pointed out by appellants counsel that there was no evidence to prove that the presence of any remnants of food particles or material in the room of the appellant to prove that she had vomited. But these are not of serious nature and the evidence has to be appreciated on the entire materials placed before the Court. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we do not think that the evidence of PW 1 had to be disbelieved. In the F1 statement she had given sufficient details as to how her modesty was outraged and at the time of giving evidence she has given further details. The acts committed by the appellant would certainly come within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 354 and the High Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354. 9. We agree with the findings arrived at by the High Court and convict h the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. However, since the incident had happened in 1992, the appellant had been continuing in suspension and we are told that the appellant had already undergone a sentence of two months. Considering the nature of the offence, we consider the period already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, we maintain the fine of Rs 25,000 Imposed on him by the High Court. The appellant is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. 10. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.