- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200069 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: EASHWARAPPA S/O BARAMAPPA, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR IN DAVANAGERE, KSRTC BUS-STAND, BADGE NO. 2671, R/O. HOLE HONNURU, TQ. & DIST: SHIVAMOGA, AT PRESENT NEAR BHARATH TALKIES IN THE HOUSE OF VENKATESHAPPA KAMPLI, TQ. HOSPETE, DIST. BELLARY-583132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH SHAKTINAGAR P.S., PRESENTLY BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:29.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAICHUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15/2016 AND ALSO BE Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 PLEASED TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED:15.09.2016 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT RAICHUR IN C.C.NO.62/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITION HEREIN/ACCUSED. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.62/2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur (for short ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.15/2016 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur (for short ‘Appellate Court’), wherein the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case are: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Anand Bandarakali, Assistant Security and Vigilance Officer EKRTC, Raichur lodged a complaint before the respondent – police stating that he along with his staff have seized the fake tickets and other documents from the accused. It is also alleged that on 22.05.2011 at about 11.23 a.m., the accused stated to have issued fake tickets to the passengers, who were traveling in the bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-977, which was plying from Davanagere to Hyderabad. On receiving the said information, immediately, the complainant along with his staff conducted inspection of the bus near Shaktinagar bus-stand, Raichur. They found that, the accused instead of issuing the tickets installed in the ETM machine, had issued duplicate tickets. Therefore, the complainant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 lodged a complaint before the respondent – police. The respondent – police after receiving the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.46/2011, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.16 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12 and also identified 8 material object as MOs.1 to 8. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been laid. 5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 6. Heard Sri J. Augustin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that recovery of the incriminating material was not from the custody of the accused. Hence, the recovery has not been proved. Further, it is submitted that there is no valid and convincing reasons to believe the expert opinion in the matter. Hence, the factum of issuance of fake tickets cannot be proved. 8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the interested witnesses properly. In the absence of the independent witnesses, the Courts below ought to have appreciated the evidence properly to arrive at a conclusion. Even though, it is stated that the complainant and his team had received the tickets from the passengers, who were traveling in the said bus, the fact remains that, none of the passengers have been examined. The testimony of PW.1 is highly - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 contrary, full of ambiguity and it could have been scrutinized properly before concluding that the petitioner/accused had committed an offence. Having said thus, he prays to set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that the petitioner was working as a conductor and the information received by the Traffic Controller is that the accused had issued fake tickets instead of issuing tickets installed in the ETM machine. Immediately, he informed the incident to the complainant, who is the Assistant Security and Vigilance Officer EKRTC, Raichur. The complainant and his staff have inspected the bus and found that fake tickets were issued by the accused. After having seized the tickets and other materials, he handed over the accused to the respondent – police. The findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction is proper - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 and therefore, interference with the same does not arise. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the documents available on record. 11. P.W.1 stated to be the Vigilance Officer, who was working in the Raichur Division. According to him, the accused was working as a conductor in EKRTC Davanagere bus depot. He stated to have received an information on 22.05.2011, that the accused had issued fake tickets in the bus, which was plying on the route to Hyderabad to Davanagere. Immediately, he along with his staff went to the place, conducted search and seized the materials. According to him, the accused had issued tickets worth of Rs.20,926/-. All the tickets were fake and those tickets were said to be given to the accused from one Reddy, who - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 was dismissed from service. P.W.1 has supported the case of the prosecution. 12. PW.2 was working as a Traffic Controller at Raichur Division. He received the information that the accused had issued fake tickets to the passengers. Immediately, he informed the same to the Vigilance Department and requested them to take appropriate action against the accused. He was also one of the members of the investigation team. He supported the case of the prosecution. 13. PW.3 was working as a Vigilance Inspector and he also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4 was working as a Traffic Controller and he also supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.5 and 6, who are working in the said depot have also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 stated to be the witness to Ex.P3 – spot panchanama under which fake tickets were seized. However, he did not support the case properly. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 14. PW.8 was also a witness to Ex.P2 – seizure panchanama. PW.10 stated to be a witness to Ex.P3 and he supported the case of the prosecution with regard to seizure of fake tickets. PW.12 stated to be the independent witness. He stated in his evidence that he used to go to Raichur often. On the date of the alleged incident, he traveled in the bus to Raichur, however, he stated that whether the accused had issued fake tickets or not was not known to him. 15. PW.13 was a witness to seizure panchanama. He identified his signature on the document, which is marked as Ex.P8. However, he stated that he did not know the contents thereof. 16. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it appears from the record that the officials of EKRTC have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to issuance of fake tickets by the accused. Even, PW.11 was working as a Deputy Controller at Bengaluru press had stated in his evidence that, he examined certain - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 documents produced before him to ascertain as to whether those tickets were fake or genuine. He agreed that E-way bills were issued by them and he stated that those E-way bills are genuine. However, the tickets, which were issued by the accused were fake. In addition to that, he further stated that the tickets sent to him at Annexure-II at Serial Nos.1 to 25 are genuine tickets issued by them. Simultaneously, he further stated that the tickets which were issued at Serial Nos.3 to 15 along with Annexure-I were fake tickets. He submitted his report as per Ex.P6. 17. Be that as it may, on reading of the evidence of these witnesses, it appears from the records that the Investigating Officer ought to have cited the passengers, who stated to have received the tickets from the accused to show that he had issued tickets to the passengers. Unless the passengers are cited as witness to the case, it cannot be said that the accused had issued fake tickets and obtained money from them in order to cheat the department. Merely because, the accused had possessed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 those alleged fake tickets, that itself is not sufficient to infer that he had committed the alleged offences. Moreover, all the witnesses are official witnesses and none of the independent witnesses have been examined to demonstrate that the accused had possessed fake tickets. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and rendering the conviction. Hence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.62/2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raichur and the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2575 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2019 Crl.A.No15/2016 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur are set aside. (iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed by the accused, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT:PK