- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200002/2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANTHA S/O BHIMANNA BOYINOOR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALICHAKRA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. YADGIR. 2. DEVAPPA S/O HANAMANTHA CHANDENOOR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALICHAKRA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. YADGIR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATE, FOR SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SAIDAPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2020 BY THE DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR, IN CRL.A.NO.3/2020 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YADGIR, IN C.C.NO.266/2016 DATED 17.02.2020. 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) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri Manjunath Ginni, appearing for the revision petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.266/2016 by judgment dated 17.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, imposing sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC and shall also pay - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to pay fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.3/2020 by Judgment dated 20.11.2020, are the revision petitioners. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 The charge-sheet filed by the Saidapura Police Station would reveal that on 04.04.2016 at about 11.45 p.m., within the limits of Saidapura Police Station, during the night hours, both the revision petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, lurked into the premises where Airtel mobile telephone tower was established in Balichakra Village by breaking open the lock of the generator and committed the theft of Insta Power - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 Battery worth Rs.10,000/- and thereby, committed the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. After due trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.3/2020. 3.3 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have preferred the present revision petition, challenging the validity of the conviction and sentence. 5. Learned counsel Sri Manjunath Ginni for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that material evidence are not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 sufficient enough to maintain the conviction which has been wrongly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Alternatively, he would contend that petitioners being the first time offenders, Trial Court ought to have considered the grounds of the petitioners and having failed to do so, this Court may consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin supports the impugned Judgments. He would further contend that there was a clear animus in the act committed by the petitioners inasmuch as they had hatched a plan and taking advantage of the establishment of the tower in a lonely place, broke open the lock to the generator room which was installed beneath the mobile telephone tower and they have stolen away the Insta Battery, whereby not only the functioning of the tower stopped but, also there is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 pecuniary loss to the Company and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the material evidence on record would go to show that it is the petitioners who have lurked into the guarded premises where the Airtel mobile tower is installed. 10. Learned Trial Judge while appreciating the material evidence on record took into consideration that evidence of police personnel cannot be brushed aside in toto and can be relied upon independent of any corroboration if it inspires the confidence of the Court. 11. In this regard, the learned Trial Judge has placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 Administration)1, and has recorded an order of conviction. 12. Material Object No.1 is produced before the Court and PW4 and PW6 who are the officials did not possess any previous enmity or animosity with regard to the accused persons, have supported the case of the prosecution which concludes the offence of theft. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, that too in the Revisional Jurisdiction. 13. Having said thus, admittedly no reason whatsoever is assigned by the learned Trial Judge for denying the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 14. Merely saying that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of probation cannot be granted to the petitioners cannot be countenanced in 1 AIR 2003 SC 1311 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 law, especially in the absence of any criminal antecedents insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 15. Under such circumstances, ends of justice would be met by directing the custody period already undergone by the petitioners to be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each. 16. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, custody period already undergone by them is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each, payable by each of the revision petitioners. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2915 CRL.RP No. 200002 of 2021 ii. In all, Rs.21,000/- by each of the petitioners. iii. Time is granted till 10.07.2025 to pay the enhanced fine amount. iv. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72 CT:PK