- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1397 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAZIR AHEMED @ ABDUL NAZIR, SON OF ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARALIHALLI VILLAGE, KUDALIGERE HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577245. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR, RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577245. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5003/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.119/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 2. The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 and 324 of IPC and confirming and modifying the order of the Trial Court by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5003/2019, wherein sentence is modified in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, wherein accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- instead of sentence of six months and enhanced the fine from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of all the offences. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of that the mandatory requirement of Sections 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been established by the prosecution as against the petitioner for conviction. In the absence of required ingredients for punishment under the said mandatory - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 provision, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. P.W.1 to P.W.3 have never stated exact abusing words uttered by the petitioner and it requires interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submits that the scope and ambit of revision petition is very limited. Both the Courts taken note of the evidence available on record i.e., injured witnesses evidence and also the medical evidence of the doctor who has been examined before the Trial Court as P.W.6, who noted the injuries and immediately after the incident the injured went and took treatment and nothing is placed on record to interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, this matter is listed for admission and while considering the revision petition, this Court has to take note of the scope and ambit of revision. If the Court comes to the conclusion that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record and if finding is perverse, then the Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The only contention urged before this Court in this revision petition is that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 mandatory requirement of Sections 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been complied. 6. Having perused the material available on record, the specific case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 30.07.2016, C.W.1 to C.W.3 being Linemen of MESCOM, Kudligere Division, Bhadravathi Taluk were deputed to collect electricity bills due from the villagers of Aralihalli Village, Bhadravathi Taluk. On that day at about 10.50 a.m. when they had been to the said village and went to the house of accused No.1 to collect the electricity bill due pertaining to RR No.AH.1419 provided to the house of accused No.1 situated behind the Masjid along with disconnect memo issued by their higher officer and asked the accused persons to pay the unpaid electricity bill of Rs.470/-, accused No.1 told them that he did not have money and he will pay the same shortly. For that C.W.1 informed him that if he failed to pay the amount, he will disconnect the electricity connection and when he moved to disconnect the electricity connection, accused No.1 abused him with foul language by holding his shirt collar and dragged him, assaulted him with hands on his chest and right cheek. When C.W.2 came to extricate the galata, accused No.1 assaulted with areca stick on his back and when C.W.3 came to extricate the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 galata, accused No.2 abused him and thereby prevented them from discharging their duty as public servants. 7. Charges have been framed and the same has been denied and hence the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of C.W.1 to C.W.9. C.W.1 to C.W.3 are the eye- witnesses and P.W.6 is the doctor who treated the injured P.W.1 and P.W.2 and given the wound certificate as per Exs.P.6 and 7 and also his signature is identified as Exs.P.6(a) and 7(a). Having taken note of the evidence of P.W.6 and particularly the evidence of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that P.W.1 to P.W.3, being the officials of MESCOM went with disconnection memo in terms of Ex.P.4 and there was a disconnection order by the higher authorities and to discharge their duties only they went to the spot to disconnect the electricity connection and when the amount was not paid, an attempt was made to disconnect the same and at that time, accused No.1 assaulted P.W.2 with areca stick and assaulted P.W.1 with his hands by holding the shirt collar. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Apart from that, medical evidence also supports the case of C.W.1 and C.W.2 in terms of wound certificates Exs.P.6 and 7 and evidence of P.W.6. When such being the material - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 available on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in convicting accused No.1 for all the offences and acquitting accused No.2. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed and the Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record enhanced the fine amount and modified the order of simple imprisonment of six months and in terms of modification order, there is no simple imprisonment and default sentence has been imposed by the Appellate Court by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and conviction and sentence in respect of other offences are not modified. 9. Having considered the material available on record, though the offences under Sections 353 and 324 of IPC requires punishment, in view of the modification there is no such simple imprisonment also. When such being the case, the Appellate Court also exercised its discretion in modifying the same and the State also has not filed any appeal with regard to the imprisonment is concerned. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in modifying the order of the Trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:249 CRL.RP No. 1397 of 2019 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34