- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200067 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAVI S/O GURUNATHRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 1906/58, RAM NAGAR, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE, THROUGH STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP) Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.5333/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.5333/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. DATED 07.09.2019 AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.55/2019 DATED 17.04.2021 AND BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.5333/2014 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380, OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTION 187 OF M.V. ACT. 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 Rajesh Doddamani for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Jamadar Shahabuddin for the respondent-State. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.5333/2014 for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced as under: “Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 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 one month. The accused is entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone by him U/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. The above sentences shall run concurrently.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 3. Validity of the conviction and sentence was questioned before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.55/2019. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of both sides and dismissed the appeal, whereby, order of conviction and sentence came to be confirmed. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 5. Learned counsel Sri Rajesh Doddamani for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 6. Alternatively, Sri Doddamani would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is a first - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 time offender, enhancing the fine amount, imprisonment may be set aside, by treating the 14 days spent in custody as period of imprisonment. 7. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin supports the impugned judgments by contending that accused is held to be proved for the offence to stealing the material objects from the property room of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, which has been established not only from the material evidence placed on record, but also from the recovery of the stolen articles and hence, there is material on record which would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction. 8. He would further contend that no mercy can be shown to the petitioner as it would send wrong message to the society inasmuch as revision petitioner has trespassed into the Court premises and stolen the materials from the property room, whereby, not only the offence of theft has been established, but it has also hampered the other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 pending cases and sought for dismissal of revision petition in toto. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, said material on record placed by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of the conviction inasmuch as on the stolen articles recovered from the custody of the accused did bear the property registration numbers as per the Court records. 10. Further there was no explanation whatsoever offered by the accused though he tried to contend that because of the previous enmity with the Police Authorities he has been for falsely implicated in the case on hand. But no plausible material is also placed on record to establish the said defence. 11. Under such circumstances, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 12. Having said thus, since the accused is a first time offender and eking out his livelihood by doing the coolie work, treating the custody period of 14 days as period of imprisonment for the proved offence and by enhancing the fine amount would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable on or before 31st of July 2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3554 CRL.RP No. 200067 of 2021 iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in the order of imprisonment as 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.: 58 CT:PK