ORDER 1. Despite service of notice, the second respondent is neither present nor represented. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Leave granted. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court f committed an error in acquitting the second respondent following the judgment of this Court in Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India1 which was overruled by this Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka2. Unfortunately, the High Court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant committing the same mistake. The learned counsel for the respondent State urged that the trial court was not 9 aware of the judgment of this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao2 but he was not in a position to dispute that the judgment in Common Cause A Registered Society 1 has been overruled by this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao2. 5. Having regard to the undisputed position that the trial court as well as the High Court passed the orders based on Common Cause A Registered Society1 which has been overruled by this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao2 it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment. Merely because the trial court was not aware of the judgment of this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao2 it cannot be said that the judgment was not in operation and its effect could be taken away. In this view, the impugned order passed by the High Court affirming the order made by the trial court is set aside. 6. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the matter is remitted to the trial court for proceeding afresh in accordance with law.