ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) Revision Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru in C.C.No.1450/2014 dated 07.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.22/2017 dated 23.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition is that the Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 353 , 114 and 283 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05.04.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chikkamagaluru, CW.1 along with his staff was checking the vehicles passing towards Golf Club cross road. At that time, accused No.1 was driving the pick up vehicle bearing No.KA-31-3430 in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle was intercepted, it was found that he was carrying passengers in the said vehicle and accused No.1 picked up quarrel with CW.1 and his staff and also instigated the moving vehicles on the road to set up an agitation against them and restrained CW.1 and his staff from discharging their duty as a public servant/s. Thus, accused have committed offence under Sections 353 , 114 , 283 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . 4. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet under Section 353 , 114 , 283 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the case was registered against this accused in C.C.No.1450/2014 and summons was issued to him. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The substance of plea is recorded and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The substance of plea is recorded and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, but the accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 6. Having heard on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offence under Sections 353 , 114, and 283 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences and passed orders on sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Further, accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 283 of Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.200/- each. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl.A.No.22/2017, which came to be dismissed on 23.03.2018. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case. Both the Courts have failed to look into the contradiction and exaggerated statement of the complainant in complaint as well as in the evidence before the Trial Court and also contradictions in the statement of witnesses. In the evidence before the Trial Court PWs.1 and 2 have stated that the accused and others tried to assault them on the place of incident and they lodged a complaint immediately. However, in the cross examination, they clearly admitted that after the alleged incident, they continued their duty in the same place. This exaggerated version of the witnesses has not properly looked into by both the Courts. 8. However, in the cross examination, they clearly admitted that after the alleged incident, they continued their duty in the same place. This exaggerated version of the witnesses has not properly looked into by both the Courts. 8. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief and cross examination has stated that after the incident at 5.30 p.m., within 5 minutes, he went to Basavanahalli police station and lodged the complaint. However, the First Information Report discloses that the complaint was lodged at 9.00 p.m. 9. Further, it is submitted that PW.1 in his cross- examination stated that, on his instruction over phone, his staff prepared the complaint and given it to Basavanahalli police and the said statement falsifies the very case of lodging the complaint by PW.1. This itself shows that, the version of prosecution is that PW.1 went to Basavanahalli police station and lodged complaint at 9.00 p.m., is nothing but false. This fact itself establishes that the accused are falsely implicated and the same has not been considered by both the Courts and consequently convicted the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. 10. Further, he would submit that PW.1 has stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the name, face identification and address of the accused previously and as such, the accused have falsely implicated by mentioning their names in the complaint. It further establishes that involvement of accused in the alleged incident is doubtful. PWs.3 to 8 have not supported the case of prosecution. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who claimed to be the official witnesses, has convicted the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 11. As against this, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayana A, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. As such, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. 12. As such, he sought to dismiss the revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments advanced on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i)Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court is perverse, capricious and suffer from legal infirmities? (ii) What order? 13. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in affirmative Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding point No.1: 14. I have carefully examined the material placed before me. 15. It is the case of prosecution that the Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 353 , 114 and 283 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05.04.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chikkamagaluru, CW.1 along with his staff was checking the vehicles passing towards Golf Club cross road. At that time, accused No.1 was driving the pick up vehicle bearing No.KA-31-3430 in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle was stopped, it was found that he was carrying passengers in the said vehicle and accused No.1 picked up quarrel with CW.1 and his staff and also instigated the moving vehicles on the road to set up an agitation against them and restrained CW.1 and his staff from discharging their duty. 16. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.1 to 9. The genesis of the case arise out of the complaint filed by Police Sub Inspector, Traffic Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. Ex.P1 is the complaint which reads as under: 17. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW.1- Raghavendra K N, Sub Inspector of Police, Basavanahalli police has registered the case in crime No.114/2014 against accused No.1- K P Nagaraja and driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-18-B-2595 for the offence under Section 283 , 353 and 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and submitted the First Information Report to the Court as per Ex.P7 on the same day at 10.45 pm. 18. PW.1- Sub Inspector of Police has reiterated the averments made in the Ex.P1-complaint. 18. PW.1- Sub Inspector of Police has reiterated the averments made in the Ex.P1-complaint. In addition to this, he exaggeratedly deposed his evidence that the accused have attempted to assault him and then he escaped from them and lodged the complaint to Basavanahalli Police Station. During the course of cross- examination, he has clearly stated that the alleged incident took place at 5.30 p.m. and he went to the police station at 5.35 p.m. The distance of police station from the place of crime is about 2-3 kms and within a span of 5 minutes, he has reached the police station. This evidence of PW.1 reveals that PW.1, PSI has lodged the complaint at 5.35 p.m. but whereas in Ex.P1, it is endorsed by PW.11 that he has received the complaint on 05.04.2014 at 9.00 p.m. Further, PW.1 has admitted in his evidence that after commotion, he has inspected the vehicles till 6.30 p.m. and this evidence also clearly goes to show that he has not personally visited the police station at 5.35 p.m. and further he submitted that he got typed the complaint at 5.30 p.m. and submit the same to Station House Officer and sent the same through police at 5.30 p.m. After 10 minutes, again he returned to the place of crime for inspection of vehicles. This evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that he has not personally appeared before the Station House Officer PW.11 and filed this complaint. Further in cross-examination of PW.1, he has not clearly admitted that the accused has committed the assault. Only for the first time before this Court, he has stated that accused has attempted to assault him. Further, he has clearly admitted that prior to this incident, he was not aware of the name, face and address of the accused. Further, he has only mentioned the name of accused No.1 and not mentioned name of other accused. Accused No.2 is mentioned as driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-B-2595. However, the investigating officer has not collected the materials to show that at relevant point of time, accused No.2 was the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-18-B-2595. The investigating officer has not explained as to the non-production of registration certificate of the offending vehicle. 19. PW.2 has supported the case of prosecution. However, the investigating officer has not collected the materials to show that at relevant point of time, accused No.2 was the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-18-B-2595. The investigating officer has not explained as to the non-production of registration certificate of the offending vehicle. 19. PW.2 has supported the case of prosecution. The other witnesses namely, PW.3- A Sundara, PW.4- Vijayakumar, PW.5-Gangadhar, PW.6- Wazid, PW.7-Raju and PW.8 Jaganathan have not supported the case of prosecution. The investigating officer has also not examined any independent witnesses and it is admitted by PW.1 that at relevant point of time, about 20 persons were there in each vehicle. Further, it is mentioned in the mahazar that near the place of incident, there exists a tea shop and the investigating officer has not examined any independent witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution. It is submitted that PW.1 and other staff are deputed to inspect the vehicle at the alleged place of incident. A copy of the order issued by the inspector of police was not produced by the investigating officer. It is submitted that the investigating officer has not collected any material to show that PW.1 and his staff were deputed to inspect the vehicle at the relevant point of time. If really accused Nos.1 and 2 have obstructed PW.1 and other staff from discharging their duty as public servants and even if they had violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, the investigating officer ought to have taken necessary action against them under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Instead, he has filed the charge sheet against accused under Sections 353 , 114 and 283 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code , without collecting any relevant material documents. 20. The interested testimony of official witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 has not been supported by any independent witnesses. Additionally, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are not consistent with each other and also not consistent with the contents of Ex.P1-complaint. Absolutely, there are no cogent, corroborative, believable, convincing and trustworthy evidence before this Court to constitute the offences alleged against the accused. Additionally, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are not consistent with each other and also not consistent with the contents of Ex.P1-complaint. Absolutely, there are no cogent, corroborative, believable, convincing and trustworthy evidence before this Court to constitute the offences alleged against the accused. Further, without proper appreciation of evidence on record, ignoring the admissions made by PW.1, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of alleged offence and the Appellate Court has also not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court warrants interference by this Court as the same are illegal, perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 21. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.1450/2014 by the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 23.03.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.22/2017 by the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 353 ,114,283 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code . iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be refunded to them in accordance with law. v. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial court records to the concerned Court.