- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100017 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100243 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP.NO.100017/2019: BETWEEN: KALAKAPPA S/O. IRAPPA NIDAGUNDI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P., THROUGH PSI, BADAMI POLICE STATION, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.42/2010 DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED BY THE II- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.967/2004 DATED 19.05.2010, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 COURT, BADAMI AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 409, 465, 471 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. IN CRL.RP.NO.100243/2018: BETWEEN: SHIVAMURTHY S/O. SOMAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. POSTAL ASSISTANT, R/O. RAMPUR R.C., TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH BADAMI POLICE STATION. …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 AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.05.2010, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BADAMI IN C.C.NO.967/2004 AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION DATED 16.11.2018, PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, IN CRL.A.NO.36/2010 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 409, 465, 471 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Jagadish Patil and Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned Advocates for the revision petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y. Devaredyavara. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. These two revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively challenging the order of conviction in CC No.967/2004 dated 19.05.2010. Revision petitioners in both the revision petitions have suffered an order of conviction after due trial for the offences punishable under Section 409, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as under: “The accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for having committed offence under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for having committed offence under Section 465 read with Section 34 of IPC and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for having committed offence under Section 471 read with 34 of IPC and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of the fine - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” 3. It is noticed that revision petitioners were employees of the Postal Department and misappropriated the amount belonging to the general public and also they have falsified the account books to cover up their misdeeds. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence placed on record in Crl.A.Nos.36/2010 and 42/2010 respectively and dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons. 5. Thereafter, accused persons are before this Court, in this revision. 6. Learned Advocates for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition however tried to impress upon this Court that the order of conviction is bad in law. 7. They also contended that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably taking note of the age of the revision petitioners. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 9. He would further contend that the material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to establish all the ingredients of the offenses alleged against the accused persons which is predominantly based on documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, order of conviction needs no interference. 10. He would further contended that no leniency can be shown to the persons like revision petitioners who have misused the funds of the public that too in the post office and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that revision petitioners are the employees of the post office, Belur Village, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District. 13. Documentary evidence placed on record namely joint RD account passbook, SBI account passbook marked at Exs.P3 and 7 and RD general book which are two in numbers - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 marked at Exs.P.9 and 10, account books marked at Exs.P.11 to 14 and non-entry of the credit accounts in Ex.P.11 marked at Ex.P.15, specimen signatures of accused No.2 marked at Ex.17 and the handwritings found in other place of the account books marked at Exs.P.18 to 20 would predominantly establish that instead of remitting the amount to the RD accounts, petitioners in utter collusion with each other, have misappropriated the amounts of the general public who are the RD account holders. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, order of conviction recorded by recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference with the limited revisional jurisdiction. 15. However, as is contented on behalf of the revision petitioners that accused No.2 is removed from the Postal Department and accused No.1 has been given punishment in the domestic enquiry and also taking note of their age, setting aside the imprisonment, by modifying the sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate by directing the accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by directing them to pay enhanced fine of Rs.40,000/- would meet the ends of justice. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6218 CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100243 of 2018 16. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER i. Revision petitions are allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 409, 465 and 471 of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the revision petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.40,000/- on or before 15.05.2025. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 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.: 24