- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2012 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1274 OF 2012 IN CRL.A No. 1305/2012 BETWEEN: B. PRITHVIRAJ REDDY, S/O LATE B. JANARDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAKATHIYA TRAVELS, NO.3-5-889, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERBAD-29(AP) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CBI, ACB, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL. C.C. & S.J. & SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.117/2005- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 420, 109 R/W 419 ,468 AND 471 OF IPC. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 IN CRL.A NO. 1274/2012 BETWEEN: 1. P D S R V PRASAD RAJU @ DURGA PRASAD @ PRASAD RAJU, S/O LATE APALA RAJU, AGED ABOAUT 60 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.407, KAILAS TOWERS, PUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, ABOVE FOOD WORLD NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 64. 2. P. VENKATAPATHI RAJU, S/O. LATE APALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.407, KAILAS TOWERS, PUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, ABOVE FOOD WORLD, NEW TOWN YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 64. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL. C.C. & S.J. & SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.117/2005-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS /ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 420, 109 R/W 149, 468 AND 471 OF IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for return of the non bailable warrant issued in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 by virtue of the order passed by this Court on the application filed by the appellants today, by consent of the parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Sri.Parameshwar N. Hegde and Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned Advocates for the appellants and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. At the outset, Sri.Parameshwar N. Hegde and Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned Advocates contended that they may not seriously challenged the order of conviction but they restricted their arguments with vehemence on the question of sentence to be modified. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 4. Sri.Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1305/2012 however, tried to convince the Court that no role was played by the appellant and judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures and in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that incident has occurred long back and role assigned to the appellant is limited, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Special Judge may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 5. Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 would contend that the health condition of the appellants are very fragile and they are unable to move around and their business concerns have also come to stand still and it is only the sons of the appellants who are doing the job in a private company are required to pay the reasonable fine amount in the event, this Court setting aside the imprisonment period taking note of the health conditions of the appellants. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 6. Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellants stating that huge sum of money is still due to the bank and even though accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted, it is the present appellants who are the beneficiaries. Therefore, they are required to repatriate the entire loss to the bank. If they do so, then only the submission made on behalf of the appellants can be considered and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 7. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, the sole point that would arise for consideration in both the appeals is: “Whether the appellants have made out a case for modification of the sentence?” 9. In the case on hand, since fraud has been established and impersonation has also been established insofar as offering the security is concerned, the ingredients to attract the offences for which the appellants have been convicted is based on sound and logical reasons which requires - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 no further consideration even after reappreciation of the material evidence on record. 10. However, taking note of the health conditions of the appellants in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 which is supported by the medical records including the photographs whereunder, the health condition of the appellants appears to be very fragile, this Court is of the considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, sentence of imprisonment needs to be set aside; more so, having regard to the fact that the appellants are the first time offenders. 11. Insofar as the appellant in Crl.A.No.1305/2012, even according to the prosecution, he received sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the appellant in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 and managed to get a person impersonated for furnishing the security of the loan borrowed by the appellants in Crl.A.No.1274/2012. 12. The signature of the person who said to have actually furnished the guarantee, did not tally with the signature of the original owner of the property. Therefore, role - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 played by the appellant in the fraudulent act stood established by placing necessary evidence on record. 13. However, the allegation that the appellant – B.Prithviraj Reddy in Crl.A.No.1305/2012 received sum of Rs.7,00,000/- is not properly established by placing necessary evidence on record. 14. Taking note of the fact that B.Prithviraj Reddy is also a first time offender, if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met. 15. So far as the appellants in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 are concerned, they are ready to pay reasonable enhanced fine amount having regard to the fact that their business concern has come to stand still and enhanced fine amount is to be paid by the respective children. Accordingly, if they are directed to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- payable in three installments commencing from 30.03.2025, 30.05.2025 and 30.07.2025, ends of justice would be met in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 16. Accordingly, point is answered partly in the affirmative. 17. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeals are allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 109 read with Section 419, 468 and 471 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the learned Special Judge is modified as under: a. The simple imprisonment ordered by the learned Special Judge insofar as appellant in Crl.A.No.1305/2012 is hereby set aside by directing said B.Prithviraj Reddy to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2025. b. The sentence of imprisonment ordered for the appellants in Crl.A.No.1274/2012 is hereby set aside subject to the payment of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8647 CRL.A No. 1305 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1274 of 2012 enhanced fine amount of Rs.7,50,000/- each payable in three installments commencing from 30.03.2025, 30.05.2025 and 30.07.2025 before the Trial Court. c. Failure to make the enhanced fine amount by the appellants in both the appeals would result in automatic restoration of the imprisonment period as ordered by the learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT: BHK