JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal is filed challenging the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati dtd. 23/08/2022 by which application for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.497/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 448, 451, 453, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(g), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(za)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati came to be rejected. 3. The appellants herein are husband and wife. The appellant no.2 is the science graduate and a qualified pharmacist. As he suffered from brain hemorrhage followed by Epileptic attack in the year 2009, he is not actively involved in work due to physical disability and is under treatment of neurologist. The appellant no.1 is post-graduate in MSW (Master of Social Work), M.Lib. (Master of Library and Information Science). She has been lecturer in Jijamatanagar, Chandur Bazar, Amravati and also at Amravati University. The informant is a former tenant of appellant no.1 and 2 and he also a Director of Ramchandra Health Care LLP Hospital, Amravati. There are civil litigation between appellant no.1 and 2 and the informant on the count of payment of rent. 4. On 25/11/2016, respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the appellant no.1 and 2 wherein First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.925/2016 for the offences punishable under Sec. 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had approached the learned Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail vide Criminal Application No.1042/2016. The learned Trial Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail by its order dtd. 05/12/2016 by holding that the dispute between respondent no.2 and appellant nos.1 and 2 is of civil nature. The respondent no.2 challenged the said order by filing an application before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail. This Court was pleased to allow the said application to withdraw by its order dtd. 13/06/2017. 5. Again on 14/08/2018 another complaint came to be lodged by respondent no.2 and First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.590/2018 under Ss. This Court was pleased to allow the said application to withdraw by its order dtd. 13/06/2017. 5. Again on 14/08/2018 another complaint came to be lodged by respondent no.2 and First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.590/2018 under Ss. 294 and 448 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(4) and 3(1) (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 brother of appellant no.1 namely Kishor Bhamburkar was also roped by the resondent no.2. The matter was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and after the detailed inquiry, the investigating officer concluded that the matter is a civil dispute between the parties and that no offence is made out against appellant no.1 and 2. Hence, B-Summary came to be filed before the learned Special Court, Amravati. The copy of BSummary placed on record by the appellants. 6. After these two attempts, the respondent no.2 again on 18/06/2022 lodged the complaint with the same police station against the present appellants along with co-accused Suchitra Mahadevrao Barve and Subodh Yashwant Dhule and also against Superintendent of State Excise Department. On the basis of said complaint, First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.497/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 448 451, 453, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1) (g), 3(1) (q), 3(1)(l) (za) (e) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. It is alleged that the appellant with common intention illegally dispossessed the respondent no.2 from the rented premises owned by appellant nos. 1 and 2 by using force and by breaking lock of the respondent no.2 and by putting their own lock. It is further alleged that the appellants did not allow the respondent no.2 to enter the said premises. It is also alleged that appellant nos.1 and 2 allowed the premises to be used by other people and society and co-accused Suchitra Barve and Subodh Dhule and alleged that all the accused dispossessed him from the premises. 8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that apart from the above First Information Report, various NC reports have also been filed by the respondent no.2 against the appellant no.1 and 2. 8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that apart from the above First Information Report, various NC reports have also been filed by the respondent no.2 against the appellant no.1 and 2. Most of the NC reports closed on the ground that respondent no.2 filed false and bogus complaint with a view to misuse of process of law. There are civil proceedings going on between the appellant nos.1 and 2 on one side and respondent no.2 on the other. There is civil proceedings in respect of tenancy agreement between the appellant no.2 and respondent no.2. The appellant no.2 constructed multi-storied building at Rukmini Nagar in the year 2015. Respondent no.2 wanted to set-up the hospital and critical care unit and proposed the appellant no.2 to construct as per their requirement. The agreement to lease came to be executed in favour of respondent no.2 and monthly rental charges were agreed to be Rs.1, 00, 000.00 per month and additional maintenance charges of Rs.50, 000.00 per month. As such total amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 was agreed. As respondent no.2 failed to obey the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the appellant no.2 approached the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and filed a suit for declaration and injunction. 9. The said matter was compromised and compromise decree came to be passed. In pursuance to that compromise decree, fresh lease deed was executed between the parties wherein the lease amount reduced to Rs.50, 000.00 per month and total amount i.e. rent and service charges fixed as Rs.1, 00, 000.00. In spite of compromise decree, respondent no.2 disobeyed the decree and by giving total disregard, respondent no.2 disobeyed the compromise decree and started illegal construction. The appellant no.2 issued legal notice on 26/10/2016. Similarly, Amravati Municipal Corporation also issued notice in respect of illegal and unauthorized construction by the respondent no.2. Ultimately, on 15/03/2017, on account of various defaults and non-payment of the rent and service charges by the respondent no.2 terminated the compromise and lease deed. 10. On receiving notice, respondent no.2 filed Special Civil Suit No.36/2017 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant no.2 claiming mandatory injunction. The appellant no.2 also moved an application (Exh. 32) for direction to respondent no.2 to deposit amount of arrears of rent and service charges. 10. On receiving notice, respondent no.2 filed Special Civil Suit No.36/2017 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant no.2 claiming mandatory injunction. The appellant no.2 also moved an application (Exh. 32) for direction to respondent no.2 to deposit amount of arrears of rent and service charges. The learned Trial court partly allowed the application Exhibit 32 and rent of Rs.50, 000.00 per month was directed to be deposited by the respondent no.2. The Writ Petition challenging the said order came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 04/05/2018 in Civil Writ Petition No.6706/2017. 11. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 12/04/2022 while rejecting the application for permission to file fresh suit on the ground that the subject matter of the suit and cause of action for proposed suit are different. The respondent no.2 to file fresh suit and permission to withdraw the suit was rejected. It is also observed by this Court, the issue of illegal possession of respondent no.2 is the subject matter pending before the learned Civil Court and therefore, the issue of illegal dispossession is subjudice before the learned Civil Court. 12. Appellant nos.1 and 2 filed various complaints against the respondent no.2 wherein they have stated that respondent no.2 has threatened them to implicate into atrocities cases. The said complaints from the year 2016 until 2021 are filed collectively on record. It is also pointed out that the registration of Ramchandra Healthcare LLP managed by respondent no.2 cancelled by the Municipal Corporation, Amravati, pursuant to the cancellation request made by respondent no.2 himself. Respondent no.2 no more running the business since 23/01/2019. Hence there is no question of attracting offence under Sec. 3(1)(za)(E) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In view of charges under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellants approached the learned Trial Court seeking pre-arrest bail directions, however, learned Trial Court refused to grant relief. 13. It is alleged that the learned Trial Court has not considered that the allegations are vague, general and omnibus in nature against the appellants. It is also not appreciated that as per the First Information Report, the alleged incident of the offences committed on 05/01/2021 whereas he lodged the report on 18/06/2022 after more than one year and five months. It is alleged that the learned Trial Court has not considered that the allegations are vague, general and omnibus in nature against the appellants. It is also not appreciated that as per the First Information Report, the alleged incident of the offences committed on 05/01/2021 whereas he lodged the report on 18/06/2022 after more than one year and five months. There is no explanation for such inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. 14. It is further submitted that none of the Ss. under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be made applicable against the appellant. A cursory look at the First Information Report even does not disclose as to how accused did not allow complainant practice any profession occupation, business or employment specifically when respondent no.2 himself has applied to the Corporation for cancellation of license. To attract Sec. 447 i.e. Criminal trespass, the accused required to claim that accused committed criminal trespass with the requisite mens rea either to intimidate, insult or annoy him. 15. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for appellants relied on the following judgments: 1) Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 . 2) Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 . 3) Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 4) Yamunabai Kundlik Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR OnLine 2020 Bom 1399. 5) Shashikant Tambe and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (6) ABR (NOC) 989 (BOM.) 16. The learned Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that there is legal bar under Sec. 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply when a person commits an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 17. It is submitted that under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there are some offences which are intention based and some offences are knowledge based. 17. It is submitted that under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there are some offences which are intention based and some offences are knowledge based. As such even if, there is no intention in view of Sec. 3(g) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is sufficient if a person wrongly dispossess a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes from his land or premises by the person not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, it is sufficient to attract Sec. 3(g) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further argued that so far as allegations that Subodh Dhule was introduced by complainant, he himself has executed a rent agreement, however, it is not signed by complainant. 18. Learned Counsel submitted that being the person belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe casts, he was harassed at the hands of appellant herein. So far as citations relied by appellant in case of Hitesh Verma (supra) it is in respect of Sec. 3(1)(r) and not sec. 3(g) so far as attracting Sec. 3(1)(r) intention is necessary wherein Sec. 3(g) is concerned, it is not necessary. 19. I have heard both the parties at length, it appears that this one is the third First Information Report registered at the instance of respondent no.2 on the same ground of dispossession is taken in last two complaints. The first First Information Report came to be registered when notice was given by the appellant herein on 20/10/2016. The First Information Report came to be lodged on 25/11/2016. The anticipatory bail was granted on 05/12/2016 which was challenged by the respondents before the High Court which was later on withdrawn on 13/06/2017. The respondents then filed application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2. In the whole application, there is no whisper that he was being harassed on the count of his casts. When the appellants herein issued notice for breach dtd. 28/03/2017. In between, there are various NCRs registered by appellants also to the Commissioner of Police that the respondent no.2 herein threatened that he will file complaint against the appellants under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ultimately, he filed second complaint and First Information Report came to be registered on 14/08/2018. 28/03/2017. In between, there are various NCRs registered by appellants also to the Commissioner of Police that the respondent no.2 herein threatened that he will file complaint against the appellants under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ultimately, he filed second complaint and First Information Report came to be registered on 14/08/2018. 20. There is one application filed by respondent no.2 in Special Civil Suit No.36/2017 which was filed by respondent no.2 for declaration and permanent injunction. There was one application moved by the present appellants in Special Civil Suit No.36/2017 for direction to the respondent no.2 herein for payment of Rs.7, 00, 000.00 due and payable. In the said application, certain directions were issued by the Civil Judge Senior Division directing respondent No.2 to pay the amount. Respondent no.2 filed application for permission to withdraw the suit and to file afresh. The said application for withdrawal and prayer for liberty to file afresh came to be rejected on 12/04/2022. 21. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division while rejecting the application observed that the cause of action for the present suit and the fresh suit are totally different. The breach of terms and conditions of the compromise decree and the lease deed is the subject matter of the present suit. Whereas the illegal dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property by the defendant is the subject matter of the fresh suit. Therefore, the subject matter of the present suit and the fresh suit are not one and the same. Needless to mention here that the second First Information Report filed by the present respondent no.2 duly investigated by the Commissioner of Police and B-Summary came to be filed. 22. The third First Information Report is filed after rejection of his application for withdrawal of the suit on 12/04/2022. From all these facts, prima facie it is clear that the respondent no.2 was somehow avoiding to pay arrears of rent. The number of complaints filed by appellants also reveals that respondent no.2 threatened the appellants to rope them in complaint under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 23. So far as attracting bar Sec. 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there has to be prima facie case. 23. So far as attracting bar Sec. 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there has to be prima facie case. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on judgment in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) "10. The sec. 18A(i) was inserted owing to the decision of this Court in Subhash Kashinath, which made it necessary to obtain the approval of the appointing authority concerning a public servant and the SSP in the case of arrest of accused persons. This Court has also recalled that direction on Review Petition (Crl.) No.228 of 2018 decided on 1/10/2019. Thus, the provisions which have been made in sec. 18A are rendered of academic use as they were enacted to take care of mandate issued in Subhash Kashinath which no more prevails. The provisions were already in sec. 18 of the Act with respect to anticipatory bail. 11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of sec. 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by sec. 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions." Learned Counsel for appellant further relied on judgment in case of Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) "79.2. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar and N.T. Desai and clarify the judgment of this Court in Balothia and Manju Devi." Learned Counsel for appellant further relied on judgment in case of Hitesh Verma (supra) "16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Sec. 3(1) (r) of the Act is not made out." 24. In view of the judgment Pruthviraj Chavhan, grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is barred in respect of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, where prima facie case is not made out, anticipatory bail can be granted in appropriate circumstances, with a cautious exercise of power. The said Ss. 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have no application where prima facie case is not made out by the complainant. 25. Admittedly, offence alleged to be of 05/01/2021 and First Information Report came to be lodged on 18/06/2022. There is no explanation whatsoever for the period of more than one year and five months of delay in lodging complaint. Moreover, there were two First Information Reports earlier lodged in which in one matter, anticipatory bail was granted and confirmed and in one matter B-Summary came to be filed. This is the third attempt prima facie made with a malafide intention to pressurize the appellants. As stated above, there is civil litigation going on between the parties. Moreover, there were two First Information Reports earlier lodged in which in one matter, anticipatory bail was granted and confirmed and in one matter B-Summary came to be filed. This is the third attempt prima facie made with a malafide intention to pressurize the appellants. As stated above, there is civil litigation going on between the parties. There was an agreement and in terms of agreement there were terms settled by which the respondent-informant was to pay amount towards rent and maintenance. The amount is not paid by the respondent No.1. Third complaint came to be lodged on the same ground on which earlier complaints were lodged. In second First Information Report, brother of the appellant was roped into the criminal complaint wherein B-Summary, after investigation came to be filed. Whereas in the present matter, apart from appellants, two more persons i.e. Suchitra Barve and Subodh Dhule were made accused. It can be seen that Subodh Dhule belongs to Scheduled Caste and complainant alleged that he committed an offence under the SC and ST Act. The said allegation is prima facie erroneous and malafide. No case can be made out specifically when the person against whom the complaint is made himself is Scheduled Caste. Thus, what is pending in Civil Court since long, one cannot give criminal colour to civil litigation. 26. The learned Counsel for appellants relied on Dr. Subhash Mahajan (supra) wherein it is held that, "Exclusion of anticipatory bail has been justified only to protect victims of perpetrators of crime. It cannot be read as being applicable to those who are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons and have not committed the offence on prima facie independent scrutiny. Access to justice being a fundamental right, grain has to be separated from the chaff, by an independent mechanism. Liberty of one citizen cannot be placed at the whim of another. Law has to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Thus considered, exclusion has to be applied to genuine cases and not to false ones. This will help in achieving the object of the law. 27. It is further concluded in the said judgment that, "There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. This will help in achieving the object of the law. 27. It is further concluded in the said judgment that, "There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar and N.T. Desai and clarify the judgment of this Court in Balothia and Manju Devi." 28. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on Hitesh (supra). There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be of a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Sec. 3(1) (r) of the Act is not made out. 29. Thus, it can be seen that the property dispute was not merely on the count of the fact that respondent no.2 was Scheduled Caste. The property dispute between vulnerable sec. of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the SC & ST Act unless, the allegations are on the count of the victim being Scheduled Caste. 30. The property dispute between vulnerable sec. of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the SC & ST Act unless, the allegations are on the count of the victim being Scheduled Caste. 30. There is no prima facie case made out to attract Sec. 3(1)(q) or Sec. 3(1) (za) so far as Sec. 3(1) (za)(E) of the ST & St Act is concerned, it is in respect of obstruction or prevention of person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any manner with regard to practicing any profession or the carrying on any occupation, trade or business or employment in any job which other members of the public or any Sec. thereof have a right to use or have access to, is also not made out. In view of the fact that respondent no.2 himself applied to the Amravati Municipal Corporation for cancellation of license which was allowed and the license came to be cancelled. So far as offence under Ss. 447 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, admittedly, appellants are the owner of the property. There is civil proceedings pending between the parties in respect of the same and as such prima facie case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of these two offences also. 31. Learned Counsel pointed out that co-accused Subodh Dhule apart from he belongs to Scheduled Caste runs one NGO for COVID affected families. In COVID period, in order to provide services to the COVID affected people allowed the co-accused Subodh Dhule to use the said premises to run COVID Counseling Centre also. 32. Learned Counsel placed on record a letter requesting the appellants to allow to use the property in question of COVID patients. In view of this background, the prima facie malafide complaint is filed for the third time on the same allegations which are in second First Information Report. Alleged dispossession which is of 05/01/2021 of which third report is filed on 18/06/2022. Thus, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati has not considered all these aspects and only in view of the bar under Sec. 18 refused to grant anticipatory bail. 33. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate this fact whether complainant was illegally dispossessed or not, this matter is pending before the learned Civil Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati has not considered all these aspects and only in view of the bar under Sec. 18 refused to grant anticipatory bail. 33. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate this fact whether complainant was illegally dispossessed or not, this matter is pending before the learned Civil Court. Unless this is concluded, there is no question of illegal dispossession by the appellants herein. While rejecting application for withdrawal of Special Civil Suit filed by respondent no.2, it was observed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division that cause of action to file fresh suit is recovery of possession which is separate cause of action. In view thereof, respondent no.2 was having remedy available under the law. At any rate, there is no prima facie case made out to attract Sec. under SC & ST Act. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1) The present appeal is allowed. 2) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati dtd. 23/08/2022 in Criminal Bail Application No.769/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) In the event of arrest of appellant no.1-Manjusha Pawan Pundkar and appellant no.2-Pawan Prabhakar Pundkar in connection with Crime No.497/2022 dtd. 18/06/2022 for the offences punishable under Sec. 447, 448, 451, 453, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(g), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(za)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered by police station Rajapeth, Amravati be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15, 000.00 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Amravati. 34. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.