- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAPPA BASALINGAPPA RAJOLLI, AGE:78 YEARS, OCC: RETD GOVT. SERVANT, R/O: 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.60/2012 BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT & Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.106/2010 BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-GANGAVATHI, DATED 21.11.2012 & SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2012 THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 & SENTENCING TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS & FINE OF RS.5,000/-, 465 & SENTENCING TO UNDERGO 6 MONTHS SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT & FINE OF RS.5,000/-, 468 & SENTENCING TO UNDERGO 6 MONTHS SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT & FINE OF RS.5,000/-, 471 & SENTENCING TO UNDERGO 6 MONTHS SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT & FINE OF RS.5,000- WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2012 and order on sentence dated 22.11.2012 in C.C No.106/2010 on the file of JMFC at Gangavathi and its confirmation order dated 30.09.2019 in Crl.A No.60/2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Koppala approached this Court as against the concurrent findings seeking to set aside the said findings. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant is the resident of Hampasagara. It is stated in her complaint that during the life time of her husband, he had purchased the property from the Karnataka State Government Employees Housing Co-operative Society on 05.11.1992. However, the accused Basappa and others with a common intention to deceive the complainant, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 have transferred all the documents in favour of his son by producing the false affidavit. It is further stated that the complainant had no relations at Gangavathi. However, the Municipal Commissioner, President, Revenue Officer and also the Second Division Assistant, all these persons in furtherance of common intention to deceive the complainant, got transferred the Katha in favour of the son of the accused on 18.03.2004 on the basis of the false affidavit. Hence, she lodged a complaint. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in respect of the said dispute and after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P1 to P31. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). On appeal being filed, the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 5. Heard Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below are contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record and therefore, the same needs to be set aside. 7. It is his further submission that the alleged incident had taken place on 18.03.2004, however, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 02.06.2006. Hence, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which has not been explained by her. Therefore, the complaint has to be dismissed. 8. It is further submitted that though the complainant had made some allegations against the petitioner that he got the property transferred to his son by giving false affidavit, the fact remains that, the property was standing in the name of Andappa S/o Gavisiddappa when the petitioner stated to have purchased the same from - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 Andappa, the ingredients of deceiving or cheating the complainant would not arise. However, the Courts below without verifying the documents and also analyzing the evidence, rendered the conviction, which requires to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State justified the findings of the Courts below and she further submitted that interference with the concurrent findings is very narrow and appreciation of evidence cannot be done by exercising the Revisional jurisdiction. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein had fabricated an affidavit, which is marked as Ex.P18, which clearly indicates that he had stated in the said affidavit that the husband of the complainant was his younger brother and the husband of the complainant stated to have died on 20.12.2002. Therefore, the accused requested the Municipal Authority to transfer the property which was standing in the name of Takappa to his son R.Srinivas. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 11. It is further submitted that the signature found on the affidavit was sent to FSL. The FSL report would indicate that the signature found on Ex.P18 was belonged to the petitioner. The production of false affidavit before the competent authority knowingly that the said Takappa was not his brother and requested the authority to transfer the documents to his son, itself would indicate that he had intention to deceive the complainant. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are proper and justifiable. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses, both oral and documentary. 13. PW.2 being the complainant stated that her husband had purchased the property during his lifetime at Housing Co- operative Society and it was a registered document. Her husband died on 25.05.2001 by leaving the complainant as his legal heir. According to her, the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with other officials of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 the said co-operative society, got transferred the property in the name of R.Srinivas, who is the son of the petitioner. 14. She further deposed that she had no relatives in Gangavathi and she was not aware of the petitioner till she came to know that the property of her husband has been transferred fraudulently. In spite of lengthy cross- examination having been subjected, she supported the case of the prosecution and nothing has been elicited to support the defence. 15. PW.3 supposed to be witness to Exs.P10 to P16 and he supposed to identify the signatures found on both documents. However, he turned hostile. 16. PW.4 is the witness to the spot panchanama, he supported the case. 17. PW.5 is the witness to Ex.P17. He has supported the case. 18. PW.6 is the relative of PW.2. He says that PW.2 is his aunt. He has filed a complaint against the accused on behalf of his aunt. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 19. PW.7 was working as an Advocate and Notary. He admitted that he knew accused No.1 and also admitted that the document-Ex.P18 has been notarized by him. He further admitted that the accused No.1 had affixed his signature on the document in his presence. 20. PW.8 stated to have sold the stamp paper and he admitted that he sold the stamp paper to one Ramachandrappa, Julayi Nagara, Gangavathi. 21. PW.9 stated to have issued encumbrance certificate pertains to the disputed plots. 22. PW.10 was working as Honorary Secretary to Karnataka State Government Employees Housing Co-operative Society. He admitted that he had issued the order of allotting the property to one Mr.Takappa. 23. PW.11 was working as President of Nagarasabhe, Gangavathi. He admitted that Ex.P25 was issued in his tenure as a President. 24. PW.12 is not relevant. 25. PW.13 was working as Head Constable at Gangavathi Police Station. He stated to have brought the document - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 relating to the property from Hagari Bommanahalli. Those documents were marked as EXs.P1 and P9. 26. PW.19 was working as Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru. He stated in his evidence that he has been working as a Scientific Officer for the past 27 years. On 08.10.2007, he had received one document to verify the handwriting and signature found on Ex.P18. According to him, the signature found on Ex.P18, which is marked as D1 is tallied with the signatures found marked as R1 to R9. In other words, the specimen signatures which are marked as R1 to R9 were tallied with D1 which is found on Ex.P18. 27. After having analyzed the evidence of all the witnesses stated above, it can be inferred that the entire case is based on Ex.P18, which is an affidavit stated to have produced before the competent authority to change the documents of the property relating to one Mr.Takappa, who is the husband of the complainant. 28. On reading of the said document, it appears that the petitioner had submitted the said false affidavit by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 claiming that he was the elder brother of the deceased Takappa and the said Takappa had no other legal heirs. The said affidavit itself would indicate that the petitioner had intention to deceive the complainant and also he had intention to knock off the property. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, in my considered opinion, are proper and justifiable. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the said findings, hence, the petition is deserves to be rejected. 30. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 78 years and he was a retired Government servant. Hence, leniency may be shown in the punishment and also prays to release the petitioner on Probation of Offenders Act. 31. Having gone through the records, it appears from the records that the petitioner is aged about 78 years and it is his first criminal case. Having considered the nature of offence and also the age of the petitioner, it is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4737 CRL.RP No. 100284 of 2019 appropriate to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 32. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) The petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on executing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety, to ensure that he has to maintain good behaviour for the remaining part of the sentence, failing which, he can be called upon to serve the sentence. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 CT:PK