- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200075 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VITHAL S/O KANTEPPA, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAGYANAGAR, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KHATAKCHINCHOLI PS, TQ. BHALKI DIST. BIDAR-585401, REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHALKI IN C.C.NO.138/2004 AND CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN CRL.A.NO.12/2014 DATED 13.10.2020 AND ACQUIT THE Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.420 AND 471 OF IPC AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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) Head learned counsel Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction C.C.No.138/2004, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhalki, whereby, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 1 year respectively and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. Both the sentences - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 were ordered to run concurrently. Revision petitioner has also been accorded the benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.12/2014. 4. Learned District Judge after securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides and by considered judgment dated 13.10.2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that in fact the revision petitioner is the victim in the incident, inasmuch as, the other accused persons, who have taken the money from him to get a PUC marks card - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 from the university but failed to deliver the said PUC marks card. Therefore, the petitioner is to be treated as victim, which has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Magistrate as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 7. In the alternative, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, considering the fact that petitioner is now grown up and a family person, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside as he is admittedly a first time offender, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and hence, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the order of conviction and sentence by contending that it is the petitioner, who was the beneficiary of the forging the marks card of the II PUC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 Therefore, he cannot contend that he was the victim in incident. 9. Further, knowing fully well that he is not competent to hold the marks card as pass from the II PUC, he managed to get the forged marks card as if he has completed the II PUC and therefore, element of wrongful loss and wrongful gain as well as for ingredients to attract the offence under Section 471 of IPC, whereby, the forged document has been prepared for the benefit of the petitioner, stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Insofar as the alternate submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the people like revision petitioner shall not be shown any lenience, inasmuch as, it would send a wrong message to the society and similarly placed perpetrators of the crime - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 would get encouraged by showing lenience and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the fake marks card is seized from the custody of the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the signature and seal found in the said marks card is duplicate. How he was able to get hold of such a fake marks card is to be explained by the revision petitioner. But no such explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the revision petitioner atleast at the time of recording the accused statement. 13. Further, the contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that he is victim in the incident, cannot also be countenanced in law, as knowing fully well that he is not entitled to hold the marks card, he is in possession of the fake marks card. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 14. Further, the material evidence placed on record clearly establishes that the seized marks is a forged one. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution thus predominantly hinged on the documentary evidence and not on the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction order recorded by both the Courts does not require any interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 16. Having said thus, since the marks card is already seized and no benefit is obtained by the accused by use of said fake marks card and also taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, if the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment and balance period of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum Rs.75,000/-, ends of justice would be met. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed: ORDER a) Revision petition is allowed in part. b) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.5000+Rs.5000+75,000=Rs.85,000/-) on or before 30.07.2025. c) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 30.07.2025 would automatically result in restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3287 CRL.RP No. 200075 of 2021 d) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith. e) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75 CT: PK