- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 585 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. K.C. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O K.R. CHANDRASHEKAR GOWDA RESIDENT OF KADABA VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KIBBANAHALLIY POLICE KIBBANAHALLY, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572101 RERPESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 04.07.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10006/2018 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR IN C.C.NO.691/2011 DATED 07.02.2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent –State. 2. The revision petitioner’s counsel submits that this Court already disposed of Crl.R.P.No.541/2020 connected with Crl.R.P.No.553/2020 wherein this Court enhanced the sentence maintaining the order of conviction and treated period of imprisonment of the accused No.1 already spent as punishment and directed him to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in so far as accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, the sentence of imprisonment is set-aside directing the accused Nos.2 to 4 to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in two installments. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 3. The counsel would vehemently contend that the charges leveled against this revision petitioner who arrayed as accused No.3 is also the same and punishment imposed by the Trial Court is also the same as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. However, this Court modified the sentence of accused Nos.2 and 4 since charges leveled against accused No.1 is serious that accused Nos.1 to 4 have selling the fake trip sheets and permit near Mayura Hotel situated at K.B cross and by that time, PW12 and PW13 with their staff caught the accused No.1 and seized Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and drawn the mahazar. The counsel would vehemently contend that this revision petitioner and also the accused Nos.2 and 4 were not there at the spot only and accused No.1 was red handedly caught and registered the case and investigated the matter and this accused has been arrayed as accused No.3 and similarly as accused Nos.2 and 4 and when such material was taken note of and this Court set-aside the sentence of accused Nos.2 and 4. Hence, when this revision petitioner also not apprehended at the spot and only accused No.1 was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 apprehended along with Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 similar order can be passed. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent-State would submits that charges are alleged against all of them invoking Section 468, 471, 428 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced all of them equally and hence, Court has to take note of said fact into consideration and though this revision petitioner was not arrested at the spot, but material secured by the I.O clearly discloses that all of them have indulged in selling the fake trip sheets and permit near the Mayura Hotel. The counsel for respondent- State also submits that due to the act of this revision petitioner and other accused persons, caused the loss around Rs.1,00,00,000/- to State exchequer. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the counsel for respondent- State, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court when the Court already considered the case of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and there cannot be two yardstick and admittedly the members of the raid party who are examined as PW7 and PW2 did not nurture any previous elementary or animosity in so far as accused persons are concerned so as to file false case against them also taken note and only on credible information, the raid party has been formed and when they proceeded to the place near Mayura Hotel, they noticed accused No.1 and others. On noticing arrival of Police, other accused persons, i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 ran away from the spot. On enquiry which captured the accused No.1 and he has revealed the names of this revision petitioner and other accused persons and drawn the panchanama and also invoked the common intention. This Court has observed in the connected matter that in the revision jurisdiction, cannot revisit factual aspect of the matter unless it is patent to illegal nor there is any improper exercise of jurisdiction as held in the case of Amit Kapur V/s Ramesh Chander and Anr reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 and confirmed the conviction and also the sentence in respect of accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 No.1 is confirmed and modified only in respect of accused Nos.2 and 4 in coming to the conclusion that if the accused persons are allowed to undergo simple imprisonment, same would work harsh on them. However enhanced the fine amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each for accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 by setting aside the imprisonment period except for accused No.1 for whom the custody period can be treated as period of imprisonment. When already set-aside the sentence of imprisonment and imposed the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of accused Nos.2 and 4 who have also not been apprehended at the spot and only their names have been revealed by the accused No.1 while seizing the document Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and considering the material on record also, it is appropriate to take similar view in respect of this revision petitioner also who has been arrayed as accused No.3. In view of dismissal of above revision petition, the following order is passed: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3413 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2020 ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. ii) While maintaining the order of conviction against this revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one month from today by setting aside the imprisonment order against this revision petitioner. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36