- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100164 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRAMOD S/O. MOHAN SHET, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NUTAN NAGAR, YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581359. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.A. BHANDEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD -580010, (THROUGH POLICE STATION, YELLAPUR, U.K) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5039/2022 DATED 22.02.2023 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO. 370/2015, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELLAPUR, DATED 19.04.2022, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 411 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO. 3/PETITIONER AND ORDER TO REFUND THE FINE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.14 15:18:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Accused No.3 who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC in CC No.370/2015 dated 19.04.2022 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5039/2022 dated 22.02.2023 is the revision petitioner. 2. Facts in the nut shell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 2.1. A complaint came to be lodged alleging that on 27.12.2013 between 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. of 28.12.2013 in Manjunath Nagar, within the limits of Yellapura Police Station, accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly broke open the lock of the front door of the house of the complainant. Thereafter, gained entry inside the house of the complainant and forcibly broke open the lock of steel Almirah and thieved the gold ornaments. Later on, those ornaments were sold to the present revision petitioner and thereby, all the accused persons have committed the offence of theft and accused No.3 who is the present revision petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 2.2. After registering the case, matter was thoroughly investigated by the police inter alia and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 and based on their voluntary statement, thieved gold articles were seized from the custody of the revision petitioner and filed the charge sheet. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons were taken and secured the presence of the accused persons. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge framed the charges which were denied by accused persons. 4. Thereafter, trial was held and after due trial, accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and present revision petitioner being accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved by said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, revision petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5039/2022. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, found that the conviction of the accused is based on sound and logical reasons. Therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.3 is before this Court, in this revision petition. 8. Sri.D.A.Bhandekar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that conviction of the revision petitioner by both the Courts has resulted in miscarriage of justice and voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not sufficient enough to conclude the offence under Section 411 of IPC as against the revision petitioner and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that in the same transactions, five different FIRs came to be filed by the police and in all the five cases, accused has been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC though he has only got the ornaments pledged with him by the accused persons believing that it is the property of accused Nos.1 and 2, he has lent the money which has not been taken note of by the investigation officer on account of previous enmity that existed between the revision petitioner and the investigation officer as the revision petitioner and other gold merchants have made a protest against the investigation officer. 10. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and so also, the material on record would indicate that the revision petitioner is an habitual in receiving the stolen articles. 12. As such, no mercy can be shown insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 13. He would further contend that recovery of the stolen articles from the custody of the revision petitioner itself conclude the offence under Section 411 of IPC in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the revision petitioner and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the stolen articles have been recovered from the custody of the revision petitioner under the panchanama which has been established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record before the learned Trial Judge. 16. Admittedly, the revision petitioner could not place any material evidence on record to establish the ownership over the stolen property which was recovered from his custody. 17. Whenever the stolen articles are received from the custody of the revision petitioner and if there is no proper explanation offered by the revision petitioner, the prosecution would be entitled for an order of conviction as against the revision petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 18. Further, material on record would sufficiently establish that the seized stolen articles have been identified by its owner and the description given by the complainant would tally with the recovered articles. 19. Moreover, no proper explanation is offered by the revision petitioner at the time of accused statement except denying the incriminatory materials. 20. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts have rightly appreciated and reappreicated the material evidence on record while convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. 21. However, in respect of same transactions of theft, five different FIRs came to be filed by the Yellapur Police and in all the five cases, charge sheet came to be filed and revision petitioner has been convicted. 22. Therefore, it cannot be construed that revision petitioner is a habitual and is charged with the offence under Section 411 of IPC especially, in the absence of any other previous complaints. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 23. Taking note of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that revision petitioner must be treated as first time offender and he is entitled for order of probation. 24. However, calling for the report from the Probation Officer at this distance of time and only for that purpose, remitting the matter to the Trial Court would result in futile exercise. 25. Ends of justice would be served by directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. 26. Accordingly, from the above discussion, following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused No.3, for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge is modified as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4608 CRL.RP No. 100164 of 2023 a. Revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court. b. Revision petitioner is ordered to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. iii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the enhanced fine amount till 30.03.2025 failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0