- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.707 OF 2016 BETWEEN: MRS T MALATHI D/O T SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YERARS, R/O DHANASHREE, 18/33, 1ST FLOOR, VINAYAKANAGAR, HAGADUR, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PUNITH S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560066 (REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALUR – 560001) 2. A N HARIPRASAD S/O NAGARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO 18/1, 1ST BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGARA, HAGADUR, BENGALURU – 560066 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 3. SARALA H W/O A N HARIPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO 18/1, 1ST BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGARA, HAGADUR , BENGALURU – 560066 4. R KRISHNAPPA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VINAYAKANAGARA HAGADUR, BENGALURU – 560066 5. P LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O PUTTAPPA, MAJOR, R/O NO 6, PRUTHVIL NILAYA, RAMAIAH GARDEN, KADIGODI BENGALURU - 560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI V N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4; SRI N SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.04.2015 PASSED BY THE I A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.120/2008 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This petition is filed before this Court challenging the order of acquittal and confirmation order passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that at the first instance, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and subsequently, an application is filed under Section 216 of Cr.PC to alter the charge sheet. The Trial Court passed an order on 22.07.2014 allowing the application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C and permitted the prosecution to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 463, 471, 120A and 204 read with Section 34 of IPC and thereafter additional charges are also framed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 4. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner that inspite of charges are altered except further examination of PW1 on 09.12.2014, not examined any of the witnesses inspite of production of the documents before the Trial Court in order to prove the additional charges framed by the Trial Court but the Trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused persons. The counsel also would vehemently contend that once the charge was altered, ought to have further examined the prosecution witnesses in order to prove the charges in the absence of evidence, question of acquitting the accused does not arise and an opportunity has to be given to the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the charges. 5. The counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 in whose favour there was a GPA and sale deed would vehemently contend that the Trial Court after framing of additional charges, further examined PW1, but not placed any material before the Trial Court by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 prosecution while considering the matter on merits and acquitted the accused. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, particularly in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in paragraph 41 comes to the conclusion that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused induced either the complainant or anyone else to deliver any property to them or to make, alter, or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security hence, the registration of case under Section 420 is erroneous and Trial Court also wrong in framing the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the State also contend that after the alteration of the charge, PW1 has been further examined and other witnesses have not been examined. Even other witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court also not further examined and IO also not further examined. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether both the Courts have committed an error in acquitting for the offences and confirming the same and whether it requires exercising of revisional jurisdiction since the order passed by both the Courts suffers from legality and correctness? 2. What order? Point No.1: 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that it is not in dispute that at the first instance, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The records reveal that the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C wherein prayer is sought that Parvathamma who is the original owner of the property - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 died long back and also in the application it is stated that in the year 1997 got created GPA after the death of Parvathamma and based on the said GAP, executed the bogus sale deed in favour of accused No2 who is none other than his wife, even though the Parvathamma died much prior to the date of said alienation and document was created and sought for alteration of the charge. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record allowed the said application vide order dated 22.07.2014 and permitted the prosecution to invoke the penal provision of Sections 463, 471, 120A, 204 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. It is settled law that once charges are altered, in view of invoking of additional offences, the Court has to give an opportunity to prove the charges. On perusal of the records i.e., the depositions of witnesses, no doubt, while filing such an application already evidence was commenced and cross-examined the witnesses and PW1 was examined on 09.12.2014 with regard to the allegation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 made in the application filed under Section 216 and the same was narrated in the cross-examination of PW1. On perusal of the records, it discloses that PW2 who has been examined on 02.01.2010 and cross-examined on 18.01.2010 and not further examined in view of altering of charge sheet. PW3 also examined on 02.01.2010 and cross-examined on 18.01.2010 and not further examined so also PW4 also examined on 11.03.2010 and cross- examined on the same day and he was also not further examined. In view of altering of charge also, except further examination of PW1, not examined any of the witnesses. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the petitioner counsel that once the charge was altered to invoke other penal provisions, the Court ought to have examined the witnesses in that regard in order to prove the charges giving an opportunity to the accused to defend the said charges. No such materials are placed before the Court and the Trial Court proceeded to dispose of the matter only after examination of PW1 subsequent to the alternation of charge and the First Appellate Court also - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 fails to consider the fact with regard to the alternation of charge and only discussion was made with regard to invoking of offence under Section 420 of IPC and the First Appellate Court though framed the point for consideration in respect of other offences also i.e., 471, 204, 420, even not discussed anything about the offences invoked under Section 463, 464, 120A and no point for consideration also raised by the First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal and not discussed with regard to the evidence available on record. When the charge was framed for the other offences i.e., Section 420 read with 34 of IPC, 471, 463 read with 34 of IPC and 204, 120B read with 34 of IPC, nothing is discussed in the appeal also and even not pointed out with regard to further evidence consequent upon alternation of charge. When such error apparent on record, both the Courts orders suffer from its legality and correctness. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the above point as affirmative. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3207 CRL.RP No. 707 of 2016 Point No.2: 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.04.2015 passed in C.C.No.120/2008 by the Trial Court and the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.39/2015 by the First Appellate Court are set aside. The matter remanded to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law in view of the observations made by this Court giving an opportunity to the complainant’s side as well as accused side to defend the charges levelled against them in view of alteration of charges. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 25.02.2025. Registry is directed to send the TCR forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 25.02.2025. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN