- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100256 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VINOD S/O. BANGARI BORKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, YELLAPUR, DISTRICT: KARWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26/2007 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC DATED 25.01.2007 PASSED BY THE JMFC, YELLAPUR IN C.C.NO. 758 OF 2000 CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:58:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Sri Muralidhar, one of the dependants of the deceased de-facto complainant is present before the Court. 3. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.758/2000 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2007. 4. The sentence portion reads as under: “The accused is convicted Under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 Out of the said fine, the compensation of Rs. 4500/- is to be ordered to be awarded to the PW-1. Office is directed to give a free copy of the Judgment to the accused.” 5. There was a civil proceeding between the parties which ultimately carried up to this Court and on account of the death of the plaintiff, the second appeal came to be dismissed as abated. 6. At the outset, Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the as per the civil Court decree, the sum payable with modified interest rate is to the extent of Rs.1,28,400/-. 7. On behalf of the complainant, it is submitted that if the civil decree is satisfied and reasonable amount of compensation is ordered in the present case, the matter can be disposed of by amicable settlement. A memo is filed in this regard. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 8. Memo reads as under: “The undersigned respectfully submits that the Complainant’s brother has no Objection in acquitting the petitioner/accused if the Decree passed in O.S.No.142/2006 and the RA.No.77/2010 was modified to the extent of granting 6% future interest on the suit claim of Rs.60,000/- is paid. Today in the Open Court the brother of complainant Muralidhar Venkatesh Revankar has received a Sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in words One Lakh Fifty Thousand rupees which includes the Suit Claim amount along with 6% interest till date and the additional compensation of Rs.21,600/- on behalf of other representative of the deceased complainant and give up all their claim in the suit and in the Criminal Case and not press the execution.” 9. Placing the memo on record, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, this Court is of the considered opinion that revision petition can be disposed of by modifying the sentence ordered by the Trial 1 (2022) 14 SCC 531 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court by setting aside the imprisonment period by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 10. By payment of sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, one of the legal representatives of deceased de-facto complainant would acknowledge that not only the civil decree is satisfied but also the compensation payable to the de- facto complainant. 11. If there is any inter se dispute among the other two legal representatives of deceased de-facto complainant, it is for Sri Murlidhar Revanakar to work out and pay necessary share to the other legal representatives. 12. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5462 CRL.RP No. 100256 of 2017 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, taking note of the fact that a sum of Rs.5,000/- fine has already been paid towards the defraying expense of the State, sentence of imprisonment is satisfied by imposing the additional fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is towards the civil Court decree in O.S.No.142/2006 modified in R.A.No.77/2010) which works out to Rs.1,28,400/- as on day and remaining sum of rupees as compensation to the de-facto complainant which is now being received by Sri Murlidhar Revanakar being one of the legal representatives of the deceased de- facto complainant. 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 CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30