- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200054 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GORAK S/O AMRUTH RAO MANKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHANDANHALLI, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585401, …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, POLICE, HUMNABAD POLICE STATION, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585401, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ADMIT THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 IN CRL.A. NO.5023/2021, PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 12.10.2021 IN C.C. NO.462/2016, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUMNABAD CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 419, 420, 468 OF IPC, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER OF ALL CHARGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. The revision petitioner is accused No.1, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.462/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 default sentence, two years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- with default sentence and two years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with default sentence respectively. 3. Validity of the conviction and sentence was the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.5023/2021 on challenge by the accused. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties, re-appreciated the material evidence and dismissed the appeal by a considered judgment dated 16.09.2022. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 5. Sri Sanjay A. Patil learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 6. He also pointed out that the learned Trial Judge on same set of material evidence, acquitted the bank officials, who have received the documents and took it as deposit of title deeds and lent the loan. As such, same logic should have been applied to the present revision petitioner. 7. Alternatively, Sri Sanjay A. Patil learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by directing the accused to pay the enhanced fine amount, as no financial loss has occurred to the bank and sought for allowing the revision petition to such an extent. 8. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the revision grounds and supported the impugned order of conviction and sentence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 9. He would further contend that admittedly the RTC extract of the land was concocted for the purpose of furnishing the property as security for obtaining the loan from the State Bank of India, Humnabad Branch and enjoyed the proceeds of the loan amount for the purpose of purchase of a tractor which shows that there was a wrongful loss caused to the bank and wrongful gain to the petitioner, besides falsifying the documents for the purpose of obtaining the loan and therefore all ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of IPC have been established by the prosecution and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no financial loss caused to the bank, inasmuch as the loan account is regularized. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 12. Further, the fact of bank officials accepting the documents without proper verification and had the benefit of acquittal is a significant factor that has to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the revision petitioner but the distinction between the bank officials and the present petitioner is that the present petitioner, who has managed to get a falsified RTC extract to be given as a security for obtaining the loan from the State Bank of India, Humnabad Branch. 13. The loan proceeds has been utilized by the present petitioner for purchase of tractor. Later on, when the account became irregular, when the enquiry was conducted and when the mortgage was sought to be pressed into service, the mischief played by the petitioner has come into light and thereafter the action was initiated. 14. Admittedly, the documents that have been furnished for the purpose of obtaining the loan were not genuine documents. In other words, even though the loan - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 account is regularized, there was a temporary misuse of the documents, inasmuch as false documents were sought to be depicted as genuine documents only for the purpose of obtaining the loan. 15. These ingredients have been established predominantly on the basis of the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence. 16. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 17. Having said so, since the pecuniary loss has been made good to the bank, the accused, being the first time offender, being a family person to look after the wife and children, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the date till raising of the Court by enhancing the fine - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, ends of justice would be met. 18. Accordingly, following: ORDER (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (b) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of IPC, sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till raising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- on or before 31.07.2025. (c) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- on or before 31.07.2025, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582 CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022 (d) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80 CT:PK