Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30416 (KAR)

SRI JANYA NAYAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1229/2016 · 2025-02-19

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI JANYA NAYAKA SON OF DODDANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT R/O 7TH CROSS, NEAR SRP CONVENT SCHOOL VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577 005. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARCHANA, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 16.07.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.104/2012 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 06.09.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.341/2008 BY THE J.M.F.C., HARAPANAHALLI AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 468 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned Amicus Curies appearing on behalf of revision petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court in C.C.No.341/2008 dated 06.09.2012and confirmation order by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.104/2012 dated 16.07.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the Trial Court that the accused is a Village Accountant working in Togarikatte village during 1987-88. The first information is cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.424/D measuring 1.05 acres situated at Togarikatte village. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 first informant has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.424D is standing in the name of Halavva since 1971. The accused has forged the name of Halavva and inserted the name of Halappa in the concerned RTC Register without order of the appropriate authority. Hence, an allegation is made against him that he has has forged the document to cheat the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, Police have registered the case in Cr.No.57/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. After completing the investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet against for the offence punishable under Section 468 ad 471 of IPC. The Trial Court taken cognizance and the secured the accused and the accused did not plead guilty and hence, prosecution in order to prove the charges, examined PW1 to PW9 and also got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. The accused was also subjected to 313 statement and he has not lead any defense evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the document of Ex.P4 where the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 name of the accused was inserted in the RTC extract without any order from the concerned authority as well as the evidence of PW1 and so also the evidence of PW9 who is the retired Tahashildar comes to the conclusion that accused only forged the document of Ex.P4 –Pahani and also even in paragraph No.14 extracted the admission on the part of the accused in the 313 statement wherein he admits that he also continued the entries and hence, comes to the conclusion that forgery is made by him and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo one year with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.104/2012 and having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court also in paragraph No.15 detail discussion is made with regard to both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also comes to the conclusion that in Ex.P8 in the year - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 1985-86 are subsequent entries, even Ex.P8 and Ex.P7 depicts that the entries made in the year 1978-79 both in paragraph Nos.9 and 12, subsequently an insertion was made. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence also taken note of subsequent entries from the year 1979-80 upto 1984-85 clearly depict the name of Halavva, Gangavva so also the facts clearly shows that it was over written by the accused himself. When the accused himself is the cause for this fraudulent entry, it is also observed that due to this wrong entry, the said Halappa has obstructed the complainant and he has been interfering in the property bearing Sy.No.424/D and PW1 also clearly deposed the same and also taken note of the admitted fact that accused was the custodian of the document that is public document during that period and so also he forged these public documents which were in his custody and hence, comes to the conclusion that invoking of Section 468 of IPC and ingredients of the offence are also invoked. When he was having the knowledge of entry burden of proving thatfact is affirm - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 him he did not make such an entry and incriminating has not been explained by the accused and instead of he admitted the entry made by him as the entries made in the year 1978-79 and hence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court the present revision petition is filed. The revision petitioner in the revision petition contended that ingredients of offence under Section 468 of IPC was not proved and both the Courts fails to consider the material on record, lower Court committed a grave error in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment and went on discussed the alleged entries made in the course of column No.12(2) of RTC extract and wrongly observed that subsequently in the year 1985-86 name of Halappa, Gangavva is inserted in Ex.P4 and placed emphasis on 313 statement the accused as observed in paragraph No.14 of the judgment. The counsel also would vehemently contend that accused in 313 statement unequivocally stated that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 entries made in the year 1979-80 and after lapse of 5 years, the same has been entered by him, it is nothing but amendment of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since whose name found in Column No.9 shall be entered in column No.12(2) of RTC only and nobody else. Having considered the factual aspects, both the Courts have committed an error and even First Appellate Court also committed an error in not scrutinizing the material on record. In Ex.P5 wherein it is crystal clear that in the year 1978 and 1979 itself there was an alteration and no action was taken in respect of the person who was working as Village Accountant in the year 1978-79. It is also contended that there is no any whisper against the accused though there is clear allegation against one Halappa as well as another person who are the beneficiary and responsible for alteration of name of Talavagala Halavva and this petitioner is not the beneficiary and hence, this Court has to requires interference of this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note of the evidence of PW1 wherein specifically made an allegation that in view of making the entry as Halappa in the place of Halavva, the claim was made before the Land Tribunal and also causing interference with his possession. Apart from that evidence of PW1 and PW9–Tahasildar, categorically deposes that the documents were in the custody of this petitioner and when such material is found, both oral and documentary evidence available on record, question of interfering does not arise. Having heard the Amicus curie appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material on record, the specific case against the petitioner is that he was working as Village Accountant for the period from 1984-85 to 1993-94 and he made the entries in the name of Halappa instead of Halavva and based on that entry, the person whose name is entered in the records, he made the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 claim before the Land Tribunal as well as interfering with the possession of the complainant PW1. In order to prove the said fact, document of Ex.P4 also taken note of where there is an alteration in respect of RTCs’ of the year 1985 and 1986 onwards. The defense of the petitioner also that there was an alteration in the year 1978 and 1979 itself and the same has been carried out. The said contention of the petitioner’s counsel also cannot be accepted for the reason that except the material alteration in the year 1978-79 changing the name as Halappa instead of Halavva there were no further entries in the RTC, but the fact is that when he was appointed as Village Accountant of Togarikatte Village in the year 1984-85, but subsequent entries were made in the name of Halappa instead of Halavva and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are also marked. The Ex.P3(b) Ex.P3(c) are not natural hand writing, both names are specifically disclose that it is altered as Halappa instead of Halavva and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.10. It is also important to note that with regard to who had done the same also in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 paragraph No.14 of the Trial Court discussed the same. Even taken note of the paragraph No.14, statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC of the accused, he also admits the entry but only his defense is that there was an entry in the year 1978 -79 and hence, continued the same from 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 the name of Halappa, Gangavva is inserted in Ex.P4(c) and having taken note of this fact into consideration and when he did not deny that he was not a Village Accountant by that time. It is important to note that First Appellate Court also taken note of that he was in custody of those documents of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and when the same was found material alterations, case was registered at the instance of the complainant PW1 who has been examined and having considered the evidence of PW1 coupled with evidence of PW9 and also the documentary evidence, particularly the entry in Ex.P4(a) to Ex.P4(e) which is very clear that forgery of mentioning the name of Halappa in the place of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 Halavva. When such oral and documentary evidence supports the case of the prosecution and the very contention of the petitioner’s counsel that he only carried the entry found in 1978-79 cannot be accepted and having perused the same, it is only a material alteration of name of Halavva as Halappa but subsequent entries made in Ex.P4 is very clear from 1985-86 onwards mentioned the name of Halappa instead of Halavva. Having taken note of material available on record as well as the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused also not lead any defense evidence except making the 313 statement and in 313 also he admitted the entry made by him for the period from 1985-86 onwards and when such being the material on record, the Trial Court also taken note of paragraph No.14, 15 clear discussion was made and apart from that First Appellate Court on re-appreciating the same in paragraph No.15 in toto taken note of entries, particularly discussion was made in the name of Halavva by last word is corrected as Halappa. Even taken note of there was an entry in the year 1978-79 and subsequent year also there - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 was no any entry in the name of Halappa and suddenly change during the tenure of this petitioner in the year 1985-86, the present accused was the custodian of these records which is clearly stated by the concerned Tahasildar and also it is not disputed by the present accused. When such material is appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, I do not find any error in coming to the conclusion that there is no any perversity and the same is based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record. This Court can exercise the revisional power only if finding is perverse and also the finding is not legal and suffers from its legality and correctness only can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and the said circumstance is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7961 CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016 ORDER i) The Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) The Registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Amicus Curie. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50