JUDGMENT : A. B. Chaudhari, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur in Criminal Case No.1068/1999, convicting the revision applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.800/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days and for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2005, only insofar as the conviction and sentence under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. Facts: 2. The revision applicant was aged about 57 years at the relevant time and was working as Director of Akashwani, Nagpur. Samson Manwatkar was working as a subordinate Government servant under him. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.1999, the complainant Upasna, aged about 8 years, daughter of Samson Manwatkar lodged a report with Police Station, Sadar stating that she had gone in the evening along with her father at the residence of boss of his father. Both of them entered his house when he was alone. He came in the first room and caused her seat on his thigh and kissed her on her cheeks and asked her name. Thereafter, he insisted on her to see his house though she stated that she had already seen his house but he still insisted, took her in the house and had shown her bathroom, kitchen and thereafter took her in the bedroom. He sat on the bed and caused her to sit on his thigh and took her kisses and thereafter slept on the bed, caught hold of her and moved his private part on her body. Thereafter, she somehow escaped and went to her father in the drawing room and both of them then went out. She started weeping near Akashwani hall and told him about the incident. They again returned back to the house of the boss and her father protested on which the boss apologized and then they went back home. On the next day, they lodged report in the afternoon and it was taken by Police Sub Inspector N.M. Patil, who is also the Investigating Officer. They again returned back to the house of the boss and her father protested on which the boss apologized and then they went back home. On the next day, they lodged report in the afternoon and it was taken by Police Sub Inspector N.M. Patil, who is also the Investigating Officer. After recording the FIR, he recorded statements and also prepared spot panchanama and filed the chargesheet. The learned Magistrate held the trial and after hearing the evidence brought by the prosecution, recorded conviction and sentence as above. The revision applicant preferred appeal before the appellate Court vide Appeal No.22/2005, who confirmed the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC and directed him to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.800/- but acquitted him of the charge under Section 341 of the IPC. Hence, this revision application. Submissions: 3. In support of the revision application and assailing the impugned judgments and orders, the learned counsel for the revision applicant submitted that the FIR lodged by complainant Upasna Samson Manwatkar, aged about 8 years, does not at all show the name of revision applicant anywhere but shows 'Saheb' as the culprit and still in the printed FIR, against the name of the accused, name of revision applicant was shown, and this is not explained by the prosecution at all. The Officer recording the FIR was PSI Patil, who was also the Investigating Officer but he was not examined by the prosecution for the flimsy reason recorded by the trial Judge. He then submitted that the Investigating Officer had recorded statements of several independent witnesses but except mother, father and complainant herself, none was examined by the prosecution and, in fact, the charge-sheet shows that all other witnesses were given up. He then submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about 18 hours on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR, but then that was crucial because the name of the revision applicant still was not disclosed in the report Exh.39. Applicant was not known to the girl. No identification parade was held. Looking to the explanation given by the applicant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about verification of caste of about 40 employees including Samson Manwatkar, there was clear possibility of Samson involving the applicant in a false case. Applicant was not known to the girl. No identification parade was held. Looking to the explanation given by the applicant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about verification of caste of about 40 employees including Samson Manwatkar, there was clear possibility of Samson involving the applicant in a false case. Samson was working at Akashwani, Nagpur for 15 years and was never transferred out of Nagpur and his case for transfer was being processed by the applicant as an higher officer and in order to thwart the same, he appears to have taken revenge. He then submitted that not a single neighbour or independent witness was examined by the prosecution for which no explanation was tendered. He then submitted that non examination of the police officer who recorded report and the FIR and also made investigation is fatal to the prosecution particularly because the evidence of three witnesses examined by the prosecution namely; mother, father and girl is full of omissions and contradictions, which could not be even shown to the Investigating Officer because he was not examined. He then cited some judgments in support of his contention that non examination of the Investigating Officer must result into acquittal of the accused. He then contended that the prosecution theory appears to be highly improbable and impossible because the applicant was aged about 57 years at the relevant time and it is alleged that in front of her father in the first room he caused her to sit on his thigh, kissed her and then took her inside and that her father Samson did not follow her inside and, therefore, the whole prosecution case is suspicious. The learned counsel then contended that the revision applicant, who was occupying such a high post, never had any antecedent. At the verge of his retirement from service he was caught in a trap. The impugned judgment has caused miscarriage of justice to him. Per contra, Mrs. Jachak, learned A.P.P. for the State, supported both the judgments of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC and submitted that they are based on evidence and there is no perversity of whatsoever nature and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised and prayed for dismissal of his revision application. Consideration: 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties yesterday and today also. Consideration: 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties yesterday and today also. I have perused the entire record, so also the reasons recorded by the courts below for convicting the revision applicant. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter keeping in mind that the jurisdiction under a revision is limited to seeing that the Courts below have acted in accordance with law. After giving a careful consideration to the entire materials and the limitations in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, however, I have come to the conclusion that the courts below have committed serious error in law in not dealing with the matter with full care and caution and circumspection. 5. The question about non examination of the Investigating Officer is a question of law which, as stated by the apex Court, is required to be decided in the context of the facts of each case because there is no straight jacket formula that non examination of the Investigating Officer would per se be fatal to the prosecution case. That appears to be the sound view of law. It is, in this background, I proceed to examine the various facets in this case. 6. The criminal law was set in motion when on 23.07.1999, Upasna daughter of Samson Manwatkar lodged the report Exh.39 with Police Station, Sadar and in the printed FIR Exh.40 name of the accused was shown as the present revision applicant-Hemant Karande in the column of accused. It is, therefore, clear that the name of the revision applicant appeared in the printed FIR Exh.40 was based on report Exh.39 lodged by her. But the report Exh.39 recorded by PSI Patil does not even remotely show or indicate the name or some other identity of the revision applicant therein as the person who indulged in the commission of offence in question. The accused could have been named in the report Exh.39 by his designation as Director of Akashwani Centre, Nagpur; or the Government bungalow, where she had gone; but except saying that she had gone to the house of 'Saheb' of her daddy who indulged into offence in question, there is absolutely nothing in the report Exh.39 that she had gone to the house of the applicant or that the applicant molested her. Such a vital first information, when the criminal law was set in motion against the applicant, is clearly absent in this case and there is no explanation from the prosecution as to how, on the basis of this report Exh.39, name of the applicant was indicated as accused in the printed FIR Exh.40. PSI Patil, who recorded Exh.39 and 40 was also the Investigating Officer and, therefore, it was he alone, who could have explained this serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It is not the case of her father Samson that he had told the name of the accused when his daughter lodged the report Exh.39 to PSI N.P. Patil. I, therefore, find that the very genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded with suspicion. 7. It is then seen from the record that several independent witnesses were examined during the investigation by PSI Patil, the Investigating Officer and statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of Mamta (PW4) was also recorded but then Mamta (PW4) was also a sub ordinate officer working under the revision applicant but she did not say a word against the applicant in her evidence except proving panchanama nor she was cross-examined by the learned prosecutor with reference to her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. though she was an independent witness. It is also seen that the statement of one Hemant Tumram was recorded by PSI Patil, but he was also not examined before the Court. It clearly appears that Hemant Tumram was residing as a paying guest in the bungalow of the revision applicant while he was studying as student in the Electronics Engineering in Government Polytechnic College, Chhaoni and that revision applicant was not taking any money from him for his stay. In my opinion, since the revision applicant was not the only person staying in his bungalow and had the Investigating officer been examined, the defence could have had an opportunity of elucidating from the Investigating Officer about the said Hemant Tumram or other witness who were examined by him during the investigation to bring out the genesis of the prosecution case. 8. Coming to the evidence of the three witnesses namely; complainant-Upasna (PW1), Samson Manwatkar (PW2) and Milka w/o Samson Manwatkar, who were the only witnesses examined by the prosecution; I find from the cross-examination of these witnesses that there are several omissions in their evidence. 8. Coming to the evidence of the three witnesses namely; complainant-Upasna (PW1), Samson Manwatkar (PW2) and Milka w/o Samson Manwatkar, who were the only witnesses examined by the prosecution; I find from the cross-examination of these witnesses that there are several omissions in their evidence. The Courts below, however, did not at all advert to these aspects of the matter except for saying that they were not material. Upasna (PW1), the child witness-informant/complainant, deposed in the court on 15.02.2003 in respect of the incident dated 22.07.1999 so also her father Samson (PW2) and Milka (PW3), her mother. Reading their evidence in juxtaposition, will show that the same is parrot like. This is pertinently so with reference to the admission by Samson (PW2) that he was having the copy of chargesheet and statements. Upasna (PW1) did not claim that she knew the applicant even before the incident. Still, no identification parade was held. The observations in the case of Baban Bakayya Attre v. State of Maharashtra; 2001 (3) Mh.L.J.404 in paragraphs 13 would be apt, which reads thus: "13. A child witness is certainly a competent witness to depose before the Court. The Court would be justified in convicting an accused on the basis of the evidence of a child witness. If the Court finds that the child witness has the capacity of understanding and gives truthful answers, a conviction could be based on the evidence of such child witness. The rule of prudence, now reopened into rule of law, is to seek corroboration to the evidence of child witness before the evidence of child witness is made a foundation for conviction. It is to be always remembered that a child witness is susceptible to being tutored. Because of tutoring, the child witness is so much impressed that he begins to believe that what is tutored to him is the truth. The Court has, therefore, to be extremely cautious while accepting the evidence of the child witness." The time of the incident namely 7 to 7.30 p.m. was an omission so also the name of the revision applicant as accused who had allegedly indulged in committing the offence. The report Exh.39 nowhere shows name of the applicant as a person doing the immoral act in question. It only indicates, "Saheb" of her daddy, when admittedly there are several Sahebs of her daddy at the Akashwani centre. The report Exh.39 nowhere shows name of the applicant as a person doing the immoral act in question. It only indicates, "Saheb" of her daddy, when admittedly there are several Sahebs of her daddy at the Akashwani centre. The omission about name of the accused in the report Exh.39 is a very material omission but none of the courts below have looked at it. That was all the more so because FIR Exh.40 based on report Exh.39 shows the applicant as 'accused'. 9. Further, that her father himself had gone to the house of the accused who had come in the first room and taken her on his thigh is also an omission. That the accused had asked her brother's name and meaning thereof is also an omission. That the accused had taken her to bedroom and caused her sit on his thigh is also an omission. Thereafter, she insisted on her father to proceed to home is also an omission. That he again came back to house of the accused along with her father is also an omission. That her father had told the incident to her mother is also an omission. That the accused had tendered apology to her is also an omission. That the FIR should be lodged on the next day because it was night time, is also an omission. She admitted that there was telephone connection in her house. That the incident was told by her to her father near Akashwani hall is also an omission in her report Exh.39. 10. Insofar as evidence of Samson (PW2) is concerned, it is seen that he claimed to have reached his house on that day at about 7.45 p.m. from his office as against the incident at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m.; while his wife Milka (PW3) in paragraph 2 of her cross-examination at the end stated that her husband had come to the house at about 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. on that day. Samson (PW2) admitted in the very first sentence of the cross-examination that he had read the entire charge-sheet so also copy of his statement under Section 161 of Cr. Samson (PW2) admitted in the very first sentence of the cross-examination that he had read the entire charge-sheet so also copy of his statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. He does not explain as to how he could get hold of the copy of charge-sheet and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination, he stated that adjacent to the quarter of the revision applicant, there are quarters of Mohan Singh, Superintendent of Akashwani, Nagpur and Director of Super Power Station on the other side. He further stated that he was required to go to the house of the revision applicant for teaching him how to knot tie is an omission, that he along with his daughter has stopped at the community centre where she told about the incident is an omission, that his daughter told him that kiss was taken by the accused like foreigners do is an omission, that the accused was trembling when he asked him is an omission. He also admitted that Police Station, Sadar is on the way to his office. 11. Milka (PW3) is mother of the informant. She stated that her husband had come home at about 8.45 p.m. as against the incident at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. on the day of incident. She admitted that her husband is working in Akashwani centre since 12 years and the revision applicant is Station Director. That accused had taken the girl inside the house and had given her peanuts and thereafter taken her to the bathroom is an omission, that the accused had only towel on his person is an omission, that he had moved his private part on her body is an omission. She also stated in her cross-examination that Upasna (PW1) had gone to the school at about 7.30 a.m. and had returned back at about 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. Upasna (PW1) stated in the last paragraph of her cross-examination that she had gone to Police Station, Sadar with her parents at 2.00 p.m. That apart, the prosecution case, to my mind, is highly improbable in that Samson (PW2), the father did not follow the girl towards the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom when he saw the applicant putting Upasna (PW1) on his thigh and kissing her and according to Milka (PW3) applicant was having a towel on his person. It is improbable and impossible that the girl would not raise cry during the bedroom incident; and that she would not cry immediately after coming out of the bedroom or till Akashwani centre. 12. The FIR Exh.40 shows the time of occurrence of the offence between 20.30 to 21.15 p.m. This printed form Exh.40 is also interpolated insofar as time of occurrence is concerned. In the printed FIR, there is a column 3 (b) which is, "Information received at P.S. Date:......*Time......" but the same was kept blank. However, at column No. 15 which is, "Date & Time of despatch to the Court", the details are "23.7.99/11/00 hrs.". As against this, Milka (PW3) claims that on 23.07.1999, her daughter had gone to the School at 7.30 a.m. and came back from the School at about 12.30 to 1.00 p.m. which fortifies that Upasna (PW1) lodged the report at 2.00 p.m. This is clearly a contradiction as against the entry at Sr.No.15 on the printed FIR that it was sent to the Court on 23.07.1999 at 11.00 hrs. In my opinion, even this was required to be explained by the prosecution and if at all it was expected of the accused to ask explanation, the prosecution was under an obligation to produce the Investigating Officer before the Court. However, the trial Court has given the reasons in this context in paragraph 34, which I quote as under: "34. It is true that I.O. is not examined in the case. However, in my opinion, it does not make much difference. Firstly, because prosecution has tried it best to get the evidence of I.O., however, concerned I.O. is not traced out. It is high settled that for fault of the prosecution, the perpetrator of such ghastly crime cannot be held to go scot free." One would be astonished to see such a reason that the Investigating Officer was untraceable. Be that as it may. The law as to the non examination of the Investigating Officer in the light of the above discussion now needs to be gone into. 13. (i) In J.K. Devaiya v. State of Coorg; 1956 Mysore 51 ((s) AIR V. 43, C.23 July), in paragraph 18, it is observed as under: "18. Again, another serious omission I find in the conduct of the case is that the investigating officer has not been examined. 13. (i) In J.K. Devaiya v. State of Coorg; 1956 Mysore 51 ((s) AIR V. 43, C.23 July), in paragraph 18, it is observed as under: "18. Again, another serious omission I find in the conduct of the case is that the investigating officer has not been examined. This circumstance has lightly been brushed aside by the learned Sessions Judge by saying that the investigating officer could not have given any more information regarding this case. That is not a correct view. It is conceded that it is the Inspector of Police of Virajpat that investigated the case. We do not know what things he did and what he did not. An accused is entitled to know from an investigation officer what witnesses have been examined in the course of investigation, whether the witnesses examined in Court were examined by him or not, what story the witnesses told before him and whether the same is consistent with the evidence given before Court. The non-examination of the investigating officer in this case is also a serious omission on the part of the prosecution." (ii) In the case of Harnam Singh and others v. State, 1982 CRI. L.J. 1818, it is observed as under: "7. ....The non-production of such a witness only denies an opportunity to the accused persons to prove such statement of the witnesses made during investigation. In such a case the Investigating Officer is an essential witness and his examination is absolutely necessary to unfold the narration of facts made before him by the prosecution witnesses. It is only then the Court is placed in a position to consider the effect of his testimony on the story on which the prosecution of an accused is based. In this case, the Investigating Officer was such a necessary witness which should not have been permitted to be withheld by the prosecution at the trial irrespective of the fact whether his testimony was for or against the case of the prosecution. In the circumstances of this case the examination of the Investigating Office concerned was essential. 8. The non-production of the Investigating Officer has, therefore, clearly affected the fair trial of the appellants in this case. Rather, they have been greatly prejudiced. In the circumstances of this case the examination of the Investigating Office concerned was essential. 8. The non-production of the Investigating Officer has, therefore, clearly affected the fair trial of the appellants in this case. Rather, they have been greatly prejudiced. It may also be noticed in this connection that when the prosecution exempted the Investigating Officer, the appellants moved an application requesting the trial court to examine him under Section 311, Cr. P.C. but unfortunately this request was also turned down. In such circumstances it is difficult to accept the plea of the learned Counsel for the State that the Investigating Officer had incorporated in the statements of Chet Bam and Mukut Singh such facts which they had not stated before him. Such an argument could be advanced only after the Investigating Officer was examined in the court and his statement tested in that light." (iii) In the case of Ratha Jena v. State of Orissa, 1986 Cri.L.J. 490, it is observed thus: "8. ..Such contradiction could have been proved if the Investigating Officer was examined as a witness in the case. It could have been found out from him that while the petitioner (P.W.?) made the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he did not state before him that the petitioner had made an extrajudicial confession of having committed theft of the bullock. In my opinion, therefore, the statement of P.W. 1 was a material contradiction. Because of his non-examination, the petitioner was precluded from proving a material contradiction which would have helped his defence. In this connection I would refer to a case reported in 1972 Cri LJ 976 (Mys), Hirianna Shetty v. State of Mysore, in which a learned single Judge of the Mysore High Court (as it then was) held as follows: Strong reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in P. Rangappa v. State of Mysore (Cr.R.P. 397 of 1970 decided on 5.2.1971) (Mys). In the said case Santosh, J. has observed as follows: "It is needless to point out that the right of bringing on record contradictions in the statement of witnesses made before the Investigating Officer is a very valuable right of the accused. In the said case Santosh, J. has observed as follows: "It is needless to point out that the right of bringing on record contradictions in the statement of witnesses made before the Investigating Officer is a very valuable right of the accused. It is by showing that the witness has made improvements or given evidence which contradicts his earlier statement, the accused is able to satisfy the court that the witness is not a reliable witness. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case which results in prejudice to the accused." It is clear from the above decision that the examination of the Investigating Officer is necessary in order to bring on record the contradictions in the statement of witnesses and that such a right is a valuable right of the accused. Further it is clear that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is a serious infirmity, in the prosecution case in so far as it deprived the accused of the opportunity to show to the court that witnesses were not reliable witnesses by proving contradictions in the earlier statement." 9. Had he been examined as a witness, the petitioner would have got opportunity of asking many questions to him relating to seizure of the bullock, circumstances of seizure thereof, place of seizure and many other material and relevant particulars relating to the case. As the Investigating officer was not examined as a witness, he was precluded from elucidating material facts which could have helped him in support of his defence. 10. From the aforesaid analysis it is irresistible for me to conclude that non-examination of the Investigating Officer was a vital defect in the prosecution case and caused serious prejudice to the petitioner for his own defence of a criminal charge. 11. .. 12. Before parting with the case, I observe with distress the apathy of the prosecuting agency and the indifference of the criminal courts to secure presence of material witnesses for the prosecution, such as, Investigating Officers for examination in courts. There have been instances where presence of material prosecution witnesses are not secured to face cross-examination. There have been instances when medical officers and police officers have been examined, but injury reports and seizurelists which are material documents have not been got proved through them. Neither the prosecuting agency nor the criminal courts seem to bother. There have been instances where presence of material prosecution witnesses are not secured to face cross-examination. There have been instances when medical officers and police officers have been examined, but injury reports and seizurelists which are material documents have not been got proved through them. Neither the prosecuting agency nor the criminal courts seem to bother. Examination of the Investigating Officer is as material for the prosecution as for the defence because, through him a person accused of a criminal charge can successfully prove his defence and secure an acquittal. If on a few dates the presence of the investigating officer is not secured, the prosecuting agency does not insist for securing his presence and the criminal courts take recourse to a shortcut method of closing the prosecution evidence in their anxiety to dispose of the criminal case. No doubt, it is true that criminal cases should be disposed of as early as possible without least possible delay, but at the same time justice should be done, justice both for the prosecution and for the defence. Times without number this Court has observed that courts are not mere passive agents or post offices. They are not expected to exhibit an attitude of indifference to cases, but should actively participate in the proceedings thereof so as to discharge the responsibility reposed on them. It is high time that the criminal courts should awake to their responsibilities." (iv) In the case of Lahu Kamalakar Patil and anr. v. State of Maharashtra; 2013 CRI. L.J. 603, the apex court considered the law regarding non examination of the Investigating Officer but then the said judgment on facts of that case does not lay down the ratio about the non examination of the Investigating Officer as fatal to the prosecution." 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not unfolded the mysteries and would have done better by examining the Investigating Officer to enable the court to find out the truth. The reason that the Investigating Officer was not examined because he was untraceable is; to say the least, preposterous and ridiculous. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not unfolded the mysteries and would have done better by examining the Investigating Officer to enable the court to find out the truth. The reason that the Investigating Officer was not examined because he was untraceable is; to say the least, preposterous and ridiculous. As to the usual argument that a girl or a woman would not put her character at stake, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 All M.R. (Cri) 776 (SC), would be apt, particularly paragraph 16, which reads thus: "16. The approach of the learned Trial Judge as noticed supra that ordinarily a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied universally. Each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the factual matrix thereof. The law reports are replete with decisions where charges under Sections 376 and 354 of IPC have been found to have been falsely advanced." In my opinion, the appellant could not have been convicted for fanciful reasons. 15. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear to me that the courts below have failed to note the above serious infirmities in the prosecution case and the law regarding non examination of the Investigating Officer. There is no proper explanation for lodging the FIR after about 18 hours. The FIR is said have been sent to the Court at 11.00 a.m. when it is claimed by her mother Milka (PW3) that she had come back from her school between 12.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and rather 1.30 p.m. and that she had gone to Police Station at 2.00 p.m. for lodging report Exh.39. 16. Last, but not the least; it would be pertinent to look into the answers given by the revision applicant while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The relevant answers to question nos. 47 and 49 read as under: "Q.No.47:- Why the above mentioned witnesses have deposed against you? Answer : I had been the superior officer of Samson. He had been working at Nagpur since last 15 years and I was empowered to transfer him. P.C. The relevant answers to question nos. 47 and 49 read as under: "Q.No.47:- Why the above mentioned witnesses have deposed against you? Answer : I had been the superior officer of Samson. He had been working at Nagpur since last 15 years and I was empowered to transfer him. So also, in the office, an enquiry regarding submission of false caste certificate by 32 employees, including Samson, was going on and report of the same was to be presented by me. He used to pressurise me through the Union. Before this incident, he had a quarrel with me in the Office. Due not non cancellation of his transfer, he has filed this false case against me. Q.No.49:- Do you want to say anything more about this case? Answer : A false case is instituted against me and my superior officers are also informed about false case." 17. To sum up, it clearly appears that there is miscarriage of justice caused to the revision applicant and the revisional jurisdiction will have to be exercised in the present case to hold that the applicant is not guilty of any offence for which he was charged and convicted. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision No.96/2012 is allowed. (ii) Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1). (iii) The revision applicant-Hemant Tukaram Karande, is held not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC for which he was convicted by the trial as well as appellate Court and he is hereby acquitted. (iv) Fine amount, if any paid by the revision applicant, be refunded to him.