- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200094 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: TATAPPA S/O PIDDAPPA KOLLI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DEVALGUDDA, TQ. SHORAPUR-585220. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SHORAPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED BY THE DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2019, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER AND SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 SHORAPUR IN C.C.NO.844/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.844/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2) the Prevention of Damage to the Public Properties Act, 1984 and sentenced as under: “The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 years and to pay fine of Rs 5000/- for the offence punishable U/s 427 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 IPC. In default to pay fine the accused shall undergo S/I for further period of 6 months. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- for the offence punishable U/s 435 of IPC. In default to pay fine the accused shall undergo S/I for further period of 9 months. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- for the offence punishable U/s 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to the Public Properties Act 1984. In default to pay fine the accused shall undergo S/I for further period of 6 months. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Acting under section 428 of Cr.P.C the period undergone in custody by the accused is hereby set off. Acting under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C out of the fine amount a sum of Rs 10,000/- shall be given to the CW-1, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be given to the GESCOM as compensation. And remaining sum of Rs 5,000/- shall be remitted to the government.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 3. The validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.34/2019. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by a considered judgment dated 28.09.2020, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the complainant and the accused persons are relatives and on account of some serious differences with regard to the civil dispute, there was a quarrel and in the quarrel, there was some damage to the electric pole but the petitioner did not intentionally put fire onto the pump set pipes causing damage either to the pump set pipes or to the electric pole. Therefore, the parties have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 now amicably settled the matter and taking note of the same, suitable orders be passed. 6. To ascertain the said submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner, presence of the de facto complaint was secured by this Court through learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. The complainant/Rangangouda, who is present before the Court submits that the accused is his relative, an unfortunate incident has occurred on the fateful day i.e., on 18.05.2014 at about 07:00 a.m. But the parties have now compromised the issue. 8. Having regard to the age of the revision petitioner, he could not come before the Court and his son is present before the Court. 9. Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that taking note of the fact that the accused is also convicted under Section 3(2) the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 Prevention of Damage to the Public Properties Act, 1984, based on the compromise, conviction order cannot be set aside, as there is a damage that has occurred to the electric pole. 10. He also brought to the notice of this Court that out of the fine amount imposed, Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the GESCOM and therefore suitable orders be passed. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that though the dispute is privy to the complainant and the accused, in the quarrel, there is a serious damage caused to the electric pole. 13. Therefore, there is sufficient substance in the arguments put forth on behalf of the learned High Court Government Pleader that conviction cannot be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 14. Having said so, it is noticed that there is a true settlement between the complainant and the accused, who is in advanced age and is suffering from serious old age ailments. The son of the revision petitioner, who is present before the Court, submits that they have apologized to the complainant about the unfortunate incident that has occurred. 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the custody period already undergone by the accused if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, would meet the ends of justice. 16. Hence, following: ORDER (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (b) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3625 CRL.RP No. 200094 of 2020 Damage to the Public Properties Act, 1984, the custody period of one day undergone by the accused is treated as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable on or before 31.07.2025. (c) Failure to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/-, on or before 31.07.2025, the order of imprisonment passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. (d) Out of the fine amount, apart from Rs.10,000/- compensation awarded to GESCOM by Trial Court, another sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation, in all Rs.20,000/- to the GESCOM for the damages caused to electric pole. (e) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:PK