- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200066 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GUNDAPPA S/O BASAPPA YARGAGE, AGE:27 YEARS, OCCU: DRIVER, R/O MAVINHALLI, TQ.BHALKI, DIST.BIDAR-585401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH POLICE, BHALKI TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST.BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33/2014, THEREBY CONFIRMING AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT BHALKI, IN C.C.NO.135/2012 ON ITS FILE AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR ALL CHARGES WHICH HE WAS TRIED FOR AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.03.2025, 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 revision petition is filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhalki, in C.C.No.135/2012, which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (sitting at Bhalki) vide judgment dated 07.09.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No.33/2014 and acquit the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.03.2012, the complainant filed a complaint stating that on 04.03.2012 some unknown persons had entered the ATM room in the Bank premises by breaking open the lock of the door and committed theft of UPS battery worth Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, a case came to be registered against unknown persons in Crime No.36/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked six documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6 and also identified two material objects as M.O.Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 4. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Courts below are perverse, arbitrary and also apposed to the facts and law of the case. Therefore, the same has to be set aside. 6. It is further submitted that though the incident alleged to have taken place on 04.03.2012, a complaint came to be registered on 07.03.2012. There is a delay of three days in lodging the complaint and the same has not been explained properly. It is further submitted that though the alleged incident is stated to have been recorded in the CCTV, the recovery of the said CCTV has not been made and a certificate of its authenticity has also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 not been obtained. However, the Courts below have held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences which requires to be set aside. Making such submission, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader justified the concurrent findings and he submitted that the findings of the Courts below are proper. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgments. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it appears from the records that the petitioner herein stated to have stolen the UPS battery, which was kept in the ATM centre by breaking open the door of the UPS battery room. The Investigating Officer stated to have obtained CCTV footage and identified the accused based on the footage. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 Therefore, he arrested the accused on 21.03.2012. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused, the battery which was stolen was seized under the panchanama. 9. P.W.1, who was working as a Branch Manager, SBI Bank, Bhalki has identified the complaint given by him and it is marked as Ex.P.1. When a specific question was put to him that the petitioner has not committed any offences, he denied the same and assertively supported the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has committed the offences and also he deposed that the battery was recovered from the house of the petitioner. 10. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the witnesses to the seizure mahazar of the battery. However, P.W.2 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of the battery from the house of the accused. Whereas, P.W.4 has supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of the battery. P.W.4 further admitted that he was working as a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 messenger of the bank. Therefore, his evidence in respect of the seizure of the battery from the house of the accused is viewed suspiciously, as he is an interested witness. 11. Be that as it may, the footage of the CCTV was not played before the Magistrate to substantiate the theft of the UPS battery. Merely, because the witnesses namely, the Bank Manager and employee of the bank have deposed that the petitioner had stolen the UPS battery, itself is not sufficient to infer that the petitioner had committed offences. It is needless to say that the recovery has not been effected properly and there is a doubt in the recovery of the said battery from the possession of the accused. Hence, the benefit of the doubt could have been given to the accused. As the said benefit was not extended by the Courts below, the judgments of the Courts below are required to be set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2347 CRL.RP No. 200066 of 2018 ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhalki, in C.C.No.135/2012, which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (sitting at Bhalki) vide judgment dated 07.09.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No.33/2014 are set aside. (iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC. (iv) The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled. (v) The Registry is directed to send the records to the Trial Courts along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:PK