- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100198 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NAGARAJA T.G. S/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALIKATTI, HOLALKERI, DIST. CHITRADURGA – 577 526. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE AND SRI PRAVEEN P.JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH P.S.I. SUB-URBAN P.S.) DHARWAD, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, PIN CODE – 580 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.57/2020, DATED 07.09.2020, BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.577/2011, DATED 26.02.2020, PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 468 AND 471 OF IPC, IN DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE CRIME NO.238/2010, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel along with Sri Praveen P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State. 2. The accused in C.C. No.577/2011 has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad (for short, ‘the trial court’) and the judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57/2020 by the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘the appellate court’), whereby the conviction came to be confirmed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, in December 2009, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Administration), Dharwad, invited applications for the post of Primary School Teacher. The accused is stated to have applied - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 for the said post on 10.08.2009 by forging his PUC marks card bearing Registration No.368140, by altering the marks obtained in the subject of English from 30 to 80, and the total marks from 402 to 452. The said act came to the notice of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions on 20.12.2010, pursuant to which an FIR was registered, investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 4. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses and marked 20 documents as exhibits. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court recorded a finding of guilt and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the period specified. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.57/2020. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. 6. Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel along with Sri Praveen P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submits that the trial court proceeded to examine the matter under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which, according to the learned counsel, has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation of forgery was made by the prosecution and the burden to prove the same rested solely upon the prosecution, which, it is contended, has not been discharged. It is urged that Ex.P7-the marks card was issued by the PUC Board with corrections, and in that regard, the learned counsel submits that the marks as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 reflected therein were officially corrected by the issuing authority. It is further contended that the trial court, in the absence of any expert opinion, has erroneously assumed the role of an expert and concluded that the marks card was forged. It is also pointed out that PW.5 has admitted to the possibility of errors and subsequent corrections in the marks card, as per the procedure followed by the Board. Therefore, it is contended that mere corrections in the marks card cannot, by themselves, lead to the conclusion that the accused committed forgery. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the accused was a meritorious student, having secured good marks in other subjects, which itself is indicative of his capability to score 80 marks in the English subject as well. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is further submitted that the accused suffers from 85% disability and as a consequence of the present case, has lost all prospects of securing employment and is presently engaged in agricultural work. Learned counsel therefore, prays that a sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be confined to imposition of fine alone. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, submits that the act of forgery in relation to the PUC marks card has been duly established through Ex.P11-the confirmation issued by the PUC Board. As per Ex.P11, the petitioner had secured 30 marks in the English subject, whereas the forged marks card, marked as Ex.P7, falsely reflects 80 marks. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that both the trial court and the appellate court, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, have rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the accused. It is contended that the marks card was in the exclusive possession and control of the petitioner, and any act of forgery in respect thereof would be within his special knowledge therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the categorical confirmation issued by the PUC Board, marked as Ex.P11, the necessity of obtaining expert opinion on Ex.P7 does not arise. Accordingly, learned AGA prays for dismissal of the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, particularly the comparison between Ex.P7 and Ex.P11, it is evident that the marks in the English subject was altered from 30 to 80, thereby amounting to forgery. In light of the verification report Ex.P11 issued by the PUC Board, there arises no necessity to obtain an expert opinion on Ex.P7. Furthermore, the marks card at Ex.P7 was admittedly in the possession and control of the petitioner. It is neither the case of the petitioner that the corrections or alterations were made by any third party nor that the document was in the custody of any person other than the petitioner. 10. The vehement contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marks card was produced for the purpose of higher education and that no objection was raised regarding its genuineness at the relevant point in time, is of no assistance to the petitioner. Even assuming that the marks card was submitted in connection with higher studies, there is no material on record to establish that the same was ever forwarded to the PUC Board for verification. Both the trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 court and the appellate court, having considered these aspects, have rightly concluded that the petitioner had forged the marks in the English subject as well as the total marks. 11. The next issue that arises for consideration by this Court is with regard to the sentence imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with 85% disability. It is further submitted that subsequent to the incident, the petitioner has been unable to secure gainful employment and is presently engaged in agricultural activities. The petitioner is stated to be married and has two minor children who are dependent on him. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel prays that this Court may take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned. 12. In view of the findings recorded above, there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. However, considering the age of the petitioner, his physical disability and the fact that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, which includes his wife and two minor children, this Court finds it appropriate to adopt a lenient approach while imposing the sentence. Having regard to the peculiar facts and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 circumstances of the case, and taking into account the petitioner's physical condition being 85% disabled, a fact not seriously disputed by the prosecution, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The order of conviction in C.C.No.577/2011 dated 26.02.2020 and further confirmation in Criminal Appeal No.57/2020 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 07.09.2020 is hereby confirmed. iii. The sentence imposed by the Trial court and the Appellate Court is modified to imprisonment for a day till rising of the court with fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of fine, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. iv. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8115 CRL.RP No. 100198 of 2020 v. The accused shall appear before the trial court before commencement of the court hours to undergo the sentence as ordered above in the week commencing from 1st July to 4th July, 2025. vi. The trial court is requested to ensure compliance of this order. vii. The bail bonds if any stands cancelled. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order for further action. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30