- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100025 OF 2016 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMACHANDRA AIHOLE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. PUROHIT NAGAR, DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, NOW REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD.31.10.2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRL.APL.NO.40/2012 CONFIRMING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DTD.21.03.2012 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN CC NO.165/2002 AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.10 14:30:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, for the revision 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 in C.C.No.165/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and confirmed in Crl.A.No.40/2012. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4. Revision petitioner was appointed as assistant cashier in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in year 1986 and initially posted at Chikkaballapur. Later, he was transferred to various places namely Gadag, Haliyal and Dharwad. While he was serving as cashier at Rural sub Division, Vidyagiri, Dharwad, a complaint came - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 to be lodged by the Assistant Engineer, KPTCL Dharwad alleging the misappropriation of the funds and short remittance of fund against the revision petitioner. 5. Based on the complaint, Vidyagiri Police registered a case in Crime No.85/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 406 and 408 read with Section 34 of the IPC and thoroughly investigated the matter and after investigation, collected the material evidence on record and filed the charge sheet under Section 409 and 477(A) read with 34 of the IPC. 6. The presence of the revision petitioner and other accused were secured before the trial magistrate and after compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 7. Since all the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 6 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6. Prosecution placed on record 6 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6 and material objects as MO-1 to MO-36. 9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminating materials, but did not choose to place their defence evidence on record. However, on behalf of accused, 9 documents were placed on record, which are the report given to the higher officials and submissions made by the accused No.2. True copy of the documents including the complaint lodged to the police station about the shortage of the funds. 10. Thereafter, learned trial judge on hearing the arguments of both sides, acquitted accused No.2 and convicted the accused No.1 (revision petitioner) for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC for three - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 years imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) for two years imprisonment and awarded fine of Rs.10,000/-. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.40/2012. 12. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and on re-appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner is before this Court. 14. Smt. S.B.Doddagoudar, counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the courts have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 grossly erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences without properly appreciating the material on record and sought for allowing of the revision petition. 15. He would further contend that the material available on record, especially probative value of Ex.D-1 to D-9 are not properly considered by the learned trial judge while recording a finding of guilt insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned and mere short remittance of the amount itself would not ipso facto resulting an offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) of the IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 16. Alternatively, Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that revision petitioner is now removed from the service and is aged 70 years and at this distance of time, if he is sent to prison, he would be put to untold hardship, as he is also suffering from old age aliments. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 17. He would further contended that revision petitioner being the first time offender, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Per contra, Sri. Praveena Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State, would support the impugned judgment. 19. He would further contend that material on record especially the cash registers and corresponding amount that has been remitted to the government would be sufficient enough to show that the amount has been collected from the customer. But there is no proper explanation offered by the accused for the short remittance. 20. Therefore, conviction of the revision petitioner is to be maintained not only for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC but also having manipulated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 the records for the offence under Section 477(A) of the IPC and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 21. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavar would contend no mercy or leniency can be shown to the people like revision petitioner, as it would send a wrong message to the society and would encourage similarly placed perpetrators of the crime to indulgence in such crime repetitively and sought for the dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 22. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 23. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether revision petitioner would make out the case that the impugned judgment are suffering from legal infirmities, perversity and patent factual error and sought for interference? ii. Whether the sentence needs modification? iii. What order? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 REGARDING POINT NO.1: 24. In the case on hand, material evidence placed on record, especially the documents Ex.P-1 to P-6 would conclude the offence of short remittance of the money. Collected by revision petitioner from general public/customer. There is collection of the money of the petitioner, who was cashier and there was short remittance. 25. Mere filing a complaint would not ipso facto exonerate the responsibility of the revision petitioner for short remittance. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that there is a manipulation in the entries in the books of account maintained by the accused which was exclusive custody of the accused and responsibility of the accused, the finding recorded by the learned trial judge confirmed by the first appellate court that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 477(A) of the IPC, needs no interference. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 26. Moreover, none of the official superiors of revision petitioner nurtured any previous enmity or animosity against the revision petitioner to falsely implicate him in the incident. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the negative. REGARDING POINT NO.2 27. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that revision petitioner is now removed from the service and is aged 70 years and suffering from old age ailments. The incident is of the year 2001; at this distance of time, if the accused is directed to join prison, it would work hardship on him. More so, since he is a first time offender. 28. Taking note of the fact that he is already been dismissed from the service and he is ready to pay the reasonable enhanced fine amount, ends of justice would be met by imposing enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- payable in two installments. First indtOne - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 on or before 30.03.2025 and second installment on or before 30.04.2025 and portion of the fine amount paid as compensation to the KPTCL ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative. REGARDING POINT NO.3: 29. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2 as above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477(A) of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate is modified as under. (iii) Revision petitioner is directed to undergo with simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the court and ordered to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in two installments. First installment of Rs.2,50,000 on or before 30.03.2025 and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4301 CRL.RP No. 100025 of 2016 second installment of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 30.04.2025. (iv) Failure to make payment of enhanced fine amount, revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial magistrate. (v) Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the KPTCL under due identification. (vi) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 31