- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100021 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI JOTIRAJ TIRAKAPPA LALAGE AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. KODACHAWAD, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, NANDAGAD, NANDAGAD P.S., NANDAGAD, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCPG) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 164/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND IN CC NO. 348/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-KHANAPUR AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 164/2022 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-KHANAPUR IN C.C.NO. 348/2010 DATED 19.05.2022 FOR OFFENCE U/SEC. 409 OF INDIAL PENAL CODE AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ANY OTHER RELIEFS. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 11:41:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.348/2010. After due trial, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to a pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of seven days simple imprisonment. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 4. Order of conviction and sentence on challenge, was subject matter of Crl.A.No.164/2022 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 6. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 7. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly taken note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Alternatively, Sri Teli would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 note of the fact that accused is now aged 44 years and has got a family to maintain and further taking note of the fact that he is a first time offender, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 9. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent opposes revision grounds with vehemence. 10. He would further contend that the entrustment and the misappropriation of the funds is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 11. Admittedly, accused was working as a Postmaster at Kodachawada Post Office and he had misused the deposit made in the names of the minor children. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the revision petitioner and if any leniency shown to people like revision petitioner, it would not only send a wrong message to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 society but also would encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of crime and sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. Having regard to the limited scope of rivisional jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that prosecution is successful in establishing the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 409 of IPC as there was automatic entrustment and misuse is predominantly based on documentary evidence, hardly there is any scope to interfere with the order of conviction. 14. However, the alternate submission made on behalf of the accused needs to be considered taking note of the fact that the misappropriated amount is paid in full. 15. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that repayment of the amount or the settlement - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 of the civil liability ipso facto would not efface the criminality and even temporary misappropriation is punishable under Section 409 of IPC. 16. View of this Court is supported by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another1. 17. However, since the misappropriated amount is now paid, accused is the first time offender and having lost his job as a Postmaster, if the amount of fine is enhanced to a sum of Rs.25,000/- by setting aside the imprisonment, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate 1 2012 910) SCC 303 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5383 CRL.RP No. 100021 of 2023 confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside subject to payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- on or before 30th April, 2025. (iii) Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 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.: 16