- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100049 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100050 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP.NO.100049/2018: BETWEEN: 1. KHADAR BASHA S/O. GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. NEAR MASJID, WARD NO.1, CHORNUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. D. UMESH NAIK S/O. BHEEMA NAIK, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O. BANDEBASAPURA THANDA, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI. 3. M. KUMAR S/O. RAMESH, AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.6, NEAR URAMMA BHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUDLIGI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.A.NO.5059/2014 REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN C.C.NO.91/2012 DATED 23.10.2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND TO CONSEQUENTLY, ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS FROM THE CONVICTION OF SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. IN CRL.RP.NO.100050/2018: BETWEEN: B. BABU S/O. SHAIK SAB, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. FRUTI MERCHANT, R/O. WARD NO.2, KUDLIGI, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUDLIGI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.A.NO.5002/2015 REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN C.C.NO.91/2012 DATED 23.10.2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND TO CONSEQUENTLY, ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS FROM THE CONVICTION OF SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.R.M.Javed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. These two revision petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accused No.2 respectively challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.91/2012 confirmed in Criminal Appeal Nos.5059/2014 and Criminal Appeal No.5002/2015. 3. Accused were convicted for the offence under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced as under: “1. Accused No:1 to 4 are convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable U/s: 392 R/w; 34 of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 2. Acting U/s; 357(3) Cr.P.C., accused No:1 to 4 each shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. If the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- is deposited by accused No.1 to 4 same shall be released to the CW.1 as compensation, after the appeal period. 3. The bail bond of accused and his surety bond stand cancelled. 3. Bike M.O.10 belongs to accused NO:2, during the trial, he did not file any application for claiming his bike. Hence the said bike is confiscated to state. 4. Remaining M.O.1 to 3 and 8 which are in the interim custody of the complainant is made absolute, after the appeal period is over. 5. M.O.4 to 9 are ordered to be returned to the complainant, after the appeal period is over. 6. Supply free copy of the Judgment to the accused immediately.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 4. Sri.R.M.Javed learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have wrongly appreciated the material evidence on record and convicted the revision petitioners resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petitions. 5. Alternatively, he would contend that accused revision petitioners are not having any criminal background and in the event of this court holding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused No.2 was in custody for a period of ten months and other accused were in custody for a period of six months, treating the same as the period of conviction by modifying the order of the trial Magistrate by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 6. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner and supports the impugned judgments. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that police after registering the case, were able to apprehend the revision petitioners and from their custody, M.O.1 to 10 were seized. Among them, M.O.1 to 3 are the cash and gold ornaments. Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused with regard to the possession of M.O.1 to 3. 9. Further, seizure of the mobile telephones, motorcycle and small and big bags by the police pursuant to the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 which are marked at Exs.P-9 to P-12 would make it clear that the recovery is pursuant to the information gathered from the revision petitioners. Panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of M.O.1 to 10. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 10. Admittedly, the material on record would establish that the seized material objects did belong to the complainant. Incident occurred on 03.05.2012 at about 9:20 pm wherein accused No.1 being the driver of the Jeep, intercepted the free movement of the complainant in the guise of enquiring the route for Bandri, threw chili powder into the eyes of the complainant and snatched away the golden bangles worn by CW-1 and also a bag held by CW-1. 11. A complaint came to be lodged with regard to the incident initially against unknown persons and later on apprehending the accused No.1 on 07.05.2012, he gave the voluntary statement pursuant to which, arrest of other accused persons has taken place and recovery has been made. 12. In the absence of any previous enmity or animosity nurtured by the complainant against the revision petitioners and having regard to the fact that the complaint came to be filed against unknown persons later - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 on recovery has taken place from the custody of the revision petitioners, possibility of false implication of the accused persons in the incident is ruled out. 13. Further, recovery of the ornaments marked at M.O.1 to 3 in the bag which have been identified by the complainant would complete the involvement of the present petitioners in the incident. 14. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 15. Further, taking note of the fact that the petitioners are first time offenders and in the absence of any criminal antecedents, custody period already undergone by the accused No.2 for a period of ten months and remaining accused persons for a period of six months, if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- to be payable in two - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 installments, would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused-revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified the custody period of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for a period of six months and ten months of period of accused No.2 is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence under Section 392 of IPC, by directing the revision petitioners to pay enhanced fine of Rs.75,000/- to be payable in two installments, first installment of Rs.40,000/- on or before 31.05.2025 and second installment of Rs.35,000/- on or before 30.06.2025. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6724 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2018 (iii) Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as referred to supra, the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court would stand restored automatically. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB- Upto para 6 NAA- para 7 to end CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28