- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100060 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. NAGESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR FEMALE HEALTH ASSISTANT, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.88, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BEHIND MURUDESHWARA FACTORY, OLD HUBBLLI, HUBBALLI-580024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ANKOLA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND THE RECORDS IN C.C. NO. 61/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT ANKOLA AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.02.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.03.2015 PASSED BY THE JUDICAIL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT ANKOLA DIST KARWAR IN C.C.NO. 61/2008 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465 AND 471 OF IPC. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC in C.C.No.61/2008 by the Magistrate at Ankola and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for both the offences and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each with default sentence. 3. Order of conviction and sentence was upheld in Crl.A.No.53/2015 in the appeal filed by the accused. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 5. Facts leading to record an order of conviction by the learned trial Magistrate are to the effect that accused being the Junior Female Health Assistant, Primary Health Care Center at Ankola, suffice an order of transfer from the place where she was working to Health Center, Kyasalarak, Konashet, Joida taluk on 31.05.2003. 6. On 05.07.2003 she was directed to report the transferred place. Despite such an order, she said to have managed a communication bearing No.A.N.M(4) 81:03-04 dated 08.10.2003 and by virtue said communication she remained in the Ankola Primary Health Centre. When the said misdeed of the petitioner came to light, enquiry was and thereafter criminal complaint came to be lodged. 7. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After due trial accused has been convicted. 8. Case of the prosecution predominantly rested on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence of the parties inasmuch as the alleged - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 cancellation of the transfer order was fake and forged one. Thereafter, an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner which was also on merits came to be dismissed. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 10. Sri.Vidyashankar Dalawai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that there is no material on record which would establish that it is the petitioner who has committed the forgery and created the false document and therefore, recording of order of conviction by both the Courts needs to be set aside. 11. Alternatively Sri.Dalawai contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction taking note of the fact that petitioner is aged 69 years and being a lady, by enhancing the fine amount, the order of sentence of imprisonment may be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 12. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, leaned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 13. He would further contend that material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction as the petitioner is the beneficiary under the forged cancellation of the transfer order and therefore she has to explain as to how she got such a fake order on to her hands to produce it before the official superior and in the absence of any such explanation, order of conviction need to be maintained. 14. Sri.Praveena would also opposes the alternate submission by contending that if people like petitioner is shown mercy or lenience, similarly situated perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 15. Heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the documents i.e. placed on record by the accused viz., Ex.P1 to P3 and disputed signature on the document which is sought to be produced before the Medical Officer, Ankola Government Hospital would be sufficient enough to establish that the cancellation of the transfer order is fake one. 17. Signature found on Exhibits Ex.P5, 15 and 17 iscompared by PW10 and he has furnished the opinion vide exhibit P.11 and report vide Ex.P22 that signature are forged. These aspects of the matter would be sufficient enough to establish that the fake order has been created. 18. Learned trial Magistrate took into consideration the documents produced by the accused while cross examining the PW6 and Exhibit D2 while cross examining the PW 17 and came to the conclusion that the admitted signatures and disputed signatures do not tally each other and accused being the beneficiary of the forged document had to explain how she came into contact with the said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 documents and therefore, recorded a clear finding that Exhibit P5 is the forged document and rightly convicted the accused which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the District Court in the appeal filed by the accused which needs no interference, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, conviction needs to be maintained. 19. This would take this Court to the next limb of the argument put forward on behalf of the revision petitioner namely the modification of the sentence by taking a lenient view. 20. Taking note of the fact that the accused is now aged 69 years and has been dismissed from the service; being a lady, this Court is of the considered opinion that enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- by setting aside the imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 a day till raising of the Court would meet the ends of the justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of accused for the offence under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC, the sentence ordered by trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under: (a) Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the day till raising the Court and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.05.2025. (b) Failure to pay the fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence period ordered by the trial Magistrate. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6871 CRL.RP No. 100060 of 2023 (iii) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction order. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 9