- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200069 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GOLDYSINGH S/O DALEETSINGH, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O H.NO.968, CHITALA GATE, CHAVARI BAZAR, NEW DELHI-110006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. A. KALBURGI AND SRI CHETAN KALBURGI, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE THROUGH, STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, REPT. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT: 05/10/2020 PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO.72/18 BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 KALABURAGI CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER DT:23-11-2018 IN C.C. NO.2825/2012 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KALABURAGI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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 Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered conviction order in C.C.No.2825/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420, 471 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act and sentenced as under: “Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec., 465 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 gear for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 gear for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(D) IT Act and he shall pay fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. The above said sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the 18,000/- of fine amount, Rs. 16,000/- shall be paid to PW-1 and remaining 2000/- shall be defray to the State. Mo-1 Le., Cash of Rs. 16,000/- is released in favour of PW-1/Murgendra S/o Gundappa Bharadi is hereby made as absolute. Office is directed to issue free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.” 3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.72/2018. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 4. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 05.10.2020, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Sri Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that the order of conviction is bad in law, as the necessary ingredients were not placed on record by the prosecution so as to maintain the conviction order. 7. In the alternative, Sri Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the accused is the first time offender and he was in judicial custody for a period of 30 days, the period of custody may be treated as period of imprisonment by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 enhancing the fine amount reasonably and prays to allow the revision petition to that extent. 8. Per Contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds in toto. 9. He would further contend that no leniency can be shown for the people like revision petitioner, who has committed grave offences and showing any mercy to such people would only result in sending a wrong message to the society, which would encourage the similarly placed accused persons to commit such crimes in future and sought for dismissal of the revision in toto. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner is said to be guilty of forging a document standing in the name of ‘COCO COLA ONLINE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 PROMOTION’, Reserve Bank of India and World Bank with an intention to commit fraud on the complainant and whereby he has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC. 12. The material evidence placed on record would also indicate that the complainant was having mail ID as “mbhardi@gmail.com.” and communication was sent to him stating that dear winner congratulations on our online lottery bonanza. Admittedly, it was a fake message. 13. Therefore, having created such a message, petitioner is held guilty for the offence under Section 468 of IPC. In order to claim the prize money, the complaint was lured to transfer a sum of Rs.16,000/- to the account bearing number No.30859079118 and after receipt of the said money, he did not pay the prize money as assured and thereby made a wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant resulting in proving himself guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 14. Likewise, he has fraudulently used the forged document to send the message as if it is sent by Reserve Bank of India and thereby committed the offence under Section 471 of IPC. Misuse of the Email-ID exposes the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 66D of the ID Act. 15. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution mainly hinged on the documentary evidence rather than the oral testimony. A sum of Rs.16,000/- transferred by P.W.1 believing the words of the accused is established by placing necessary documentary evidence on record. Admittedly, no amount was paid by the accused to the complainant in the alleged lottery scheme. 16. Therefore, the material evidence was rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while recording an order of conviction which was rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 17. Therefore, from the above material on record, the order of conviction recorded by both the Courts is based on sound, cogent and convincing evidence on record and which requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 18. Having said thus, since the accused is a first time offender, if custody period already undergone by him is treated as the period of imprisonment by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met. Portion of fine amount can also be ordered to be given as compensation to complainant. 19. Accordingly, the following : ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420, 471 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as the period of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2983 CRL.RP No. 200069 of 2020 imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable on or before 15.07.2025. (iii) Out of the fine amount, Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the P.W.1 under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and balance amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 15.07.2025, order of the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court gets restored automatically. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68 CT:PK