- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100312 OF 2016 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: APPADYA @ KRISHNA @ MUDAKYA S/O. RAU @ RAMACHANDRA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: KHATIK GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, IN PSI, JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, AT JAMAKHANDI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82 OF 2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI AT JAMAKHANDI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.37 OF 2013 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Accused No.2, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.37/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, ‘IPC’) and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 457 and two years for the offence under Section 380 of IPC to run concurrently which got confirmed in Crl.A.No.82/2014, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged with Jamkhandi Rural Police Station contending that on 15.01.2013 at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 about 2:30 a.m. at Hunnur village, there was a theft committed in the house of the complainant by lurking into the house by breaking open the lock with the help of iron rod and from the treasury kept in the bedroom, gold rings worth Rs.52,000/- and other valuables were stolen away by some unknown culprits. 3.2 Based on the complaint, police registered the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and apprehended three accused persons in the case. Among them, revision petitioner is accused No.2. There was a recovery of stolen articles from the custody of the accused persons and finally charge sheet came to be filed. Accused stood for trial. After due trial, accused persons were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.82/2015, which on contest, came to be dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for revision petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts have erred in law in convicting the accused persons solely on the basis of recovery of gold ornaments that too from the custody of other accused persons and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. He would further contend that in the event this Court upholds the order of conviction, custody period of 15 months already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of custody as there are no criminal antecedents insofar the present accused is concerned and sought for allowing the revision petition to the said extent. 8. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent opposes the revision grounds in toto and supports the impugned judgments. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 9. He would further contend that a matter of theft, individual overt act loses its significance and recovery from an accused will be recovery for the incident and therefore, there cannot be any isolation of the role played by the accused in such matters and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. He would also contend that showing any mercy to the people like revision petitioner would result in misplaced sympathy and would result in encouraging the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the accused-revision petitioner makes out a case that the impugned judgments are suffering from - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding Point No.1: 13. In the case on hand, admittedly FIR was against unknown persons and only after nabbing the accused persons based on their voluntary statements, material objects M.Os.1 and 2 came to be recovered. Owner of the M.Os.1 and 2 identified the gold ornaments and thereafter they have given to the interim custody of the owner of the ornaments. 14. In a matter of this nature, recovery of the stolen articles is an important aspect in proving guilt of the accused especially in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the accused for possessing the stolen articles. 15. Therefore, case of the prosecution cannot be doubted and order of conviction recorded by the Trial - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 Magistrate is based on sound and logical reasons on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 16. Having regard to the scope of the revision petition, the order passed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court after re- appreciation of the evidence cannot be found fault with especially when there was no proper explanation offered by the accused at the time of recording the accused statement. 17. Thus, the order of conviction passed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by exercising the rivisional jurisdiction and hence, point No.1 is answered in negative. Regarding point No.2: 18. Sri Prashant Kadadevar submits that accused is not having any criminal antecedents and he has already undergone 15 months of imprisonment and same can be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 19. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that there are several cases pending against the accused. 20. What are those cases, weather in all those cases the revision petitioner is also a party accused and he has suffered any conviction order is not forthcoming from the case of the prosecution. 21. Merely on the ground that some more cases are pending would not ipso facto result in holding that accused is a habitual. 22. Therefore, the alternate submission of Shri Prashant Kadadevar needs to be taken into consideration as the role to be played by the Trial Judge while passing the order of conviction and while passing the order of sentence is altogether different. Hence, point No. 2 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 Regarding point No.3 : 23. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 and 2, as above, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the accused No.2 (revision petitioner) is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to be payable in two equal installments, one on 30.04.2025 and second on 30.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4962 CRL.RP No. 100312 of 2016 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38