- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 532 OF 2018 BETWEEN: AFROSE KHAN S/O. SUBAN SAB R/O. KALIKAMBA TEMPLE STREET, DODDAPETE KADUR – 577 548. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VARUN SAI Y, FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICER SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KADUR, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.No.159/2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KADUR IN C.C.No.953/2014 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed in Crl.A. No. 159/2017 whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2017 passed in C.C. No. 953/2014 by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur has been affirmed and sentence has been reduced from simple imprisonment for 6 months to simple imprisonment for 3 months with fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 193 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was a witness in the charge sheet as C.W.6 in crime No. 121/2012 of Birur Police Station and that charge sheet is filed against one M. Thimmaraju for offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and 187 of IMV Act. Petitioner who was cited as C.W.6 has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 been examined as P.W.1 in the said case. Petitioner - accused, in the chief-examination dated 25.09.2013 has supported the case of prosecution and in the cross- examination he has given entirely contra evidence to his chief examination. Learned Senior Civil Judge has mentioned the same in the order sheet and registered Crl.Misc. No. 32/2014 and issued show cause notice to the petitioner - accused. Said show cause notice has been served on the petitioner - accused and he did not choose to appear in the said case. Considering the evidence of petitioner - accused in the enquiry held in Crl.Misc. No. 32/2014, learned Senior Civil Judge has directed Chief Ministerial Officer to lodge a complaint against the petitioner - accused. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 193 of IPC. Petitioner – accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Statement of petitioner - accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner - accused has not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 let in any defence evidence. Learned Magistrate, after hearing arguments on both sides, has passed the judgment convicting petitioner - accused for offence under Section 193 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. Petitioner - accused challenged the said judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 159/2017. Said appeal came to be allowed in part confirming the conviction of the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 193 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months to 3 months maintaining the fine of Rs.5,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that petitioner - accused has not been given any notice prior to initiating complaint against him. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner - accused and he was under pressure of somebody. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy Vs. Kavitha Mahesh reported in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 2021 (19) SCC 321. On these grounds he prayed for setting the impugned judgments and acquittal of petitioner - accused. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State has supported the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and the appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. 7. Petitioner - accused has been cited as charge sheet witness No. 6 in the charge sheet filed in Birur Police Station crime No. 121/2012 for offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. On the basis of the said charge sheet a case has been registered against accused therein in C.C. No. 18/2013. In the said criminal case petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 on 25.09.2013 and he has been cross-examined on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 06.11.2013. Petitioner - accused in his chief-examination has supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused of that case. In the cross- examination on 06.11.2013 petitioner - accused has stated that he has not witnessed the incident and he do not know how the accident had occurred and he do not know for whose fault the accident has taken place. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the petitioner - accused wherein he has admitted that he has given evidence on 25.09.2013. He has stated that due to panic (UÁ§j) he had given false evidence. He has also admitted that that he has not told the Court that he was not panic at the time of giving evidence and he had not sought adjournment to give evidence on the ground of panic. He was aware of what he had deposed on that day and he has given evidence based on truth. Considering the said aspect it is clear that what has been stated in his chief- examination is truth and subsequently during his cross- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 examination, it appears, that in order to help the accused, petitioner had given false evidence. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner - accused would contend that there was no intention on the part of petitioner - accused to give false evidence and due to fear he had given the said evidence. 9. On going through the contents of chief- examination and cross-examination of petitioner – accused on two different dates it is clear that in order to help the accused of that case petitioner - accused has given false evidence intentionally. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that no enquiry was held in the same case and no notice was issued to the petitioner - accused and on that point he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy (supra). On perusal of the said judgment, there is no requirement to hold enquiry in the same proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 11. Ex.P.1 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner - accused in Crl.Misc. No. 32/2014. Said proceedings of Crl.Misc. No. 32/2014 are initiated to hold a preliminary enquiry so as to record a finding as to whether a case has to be registered against the petitioner for giving false evidence or not. Even after service of notice petitioner - accused has not appeared in the said proceedings. Ex.P.4 is the order passed in Crl.Misc. No. 32/2014 directing the Chief Ministerial Officer to file a complaint against the petitioner – accused. Based on the said order, the Chief Ministerial Officer has given complaint as per Ex.P.5. Petitioner - accused has been served with the notice prior to lodging of complaint against him for offence under Section 193 of IPC. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner - accused has not been issued with notice is untenable. The trial Court appreciated the evidence on record rightly and convicted the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 193 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 imprisonment for a period 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly upheld the conviction of petitioner - accused for offence under Section 193 of IPC. The appellate Court, taking lenient view has reduced the punishment of simple imprisonment of 6 months to 3 months. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner again seeks for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. 13. A perusal of provisions contained in Section 193 of IPC it is clear that maximum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment for 7 years and fine. The trial Court has sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine. The appellate Court has reduced it to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and fine. Merely because petitioner - accused is young and he is grazing his cattle near the Court premises is not a ground for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. Considering all - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24509 CRL.RP No. 532 of 2018 these aspects there are no grounds to allow this revision petition. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58