- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100038 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT.M. LAKSHMI W/O. RAMASWAMY, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. VARADAPURA VILLAGE, 4TH WARD, GUNDA ROAD, MARIYAMMANAHALLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY PSI MARIYAMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHATWAD. …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 CALL FOR RECORD IN C.C.NO.522/2010 DATED 29.08.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT H.B.HALLI AND RECORDS FROM THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.APL.NO.5043/2015 DATED 27.12.2017 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 447 AND 188 OF IPC AND U/S.192(A) OF KLR ACT AND TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN C.C.NO. 522/2010 DATED 29.08.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT H.B.HALLI AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.APL.NO. 5043/2015 DATED 27.12.2017. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.17 10:39:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt. Reshma Madivalar, counsel for Sri.t.Hanumareddy for revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y Devareddiyavara for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 188 of the IPC and under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act and sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 of IPC, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in brief for the disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by Smt.Nafisa Mutalib who was the Tahasildar of Hagaribommanahalli with the MM Halli police station against the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 188 of IPC and Section 192A of Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act. 3.2 Contents of the complaint would reveal that petitioner said to have encroached 5.52 acres of Government Land out of total extent of 151.95 acres In Sy.No.286/1 situated near Varadapura village of Hagaribommanahalli belonging to the Government. Despite repeated notices and requests, she failed to vacate the said land. As a result, she committed offence punishable under Sections 447 and 188 IPC and 192A of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment )Act. 3.3 Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 3.4 On receipt of charge sheet, trial Magistrate took the cognizance and recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 3.5 After due trial, revision petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred supra. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed Crl.A.No.343/2015. 3.6 Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and re- appreciated the material evidence and noted that efforts made by the accused to retain the land including the filing of writ petition before this Court. Having continue to occupy the land to the extent of 5.52 acres, disobeyed the notice issued by the Tahasildar and therefore, dismissed the appeal. 3.7 Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 4. Smt.Reshma learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that accused being the lady, she was not well versed with the legal aspects of the matter and from the time immemorial she was in occupation of the said land. Therefore she honestly and earnestly believed that she is the owner of the land. 5. Therefore, she continued to cultivate the land and there was no willful disobedience of the ordered passed by the Tahasildar. As such, no offence is made out under Sections 447 and 188 of IPC which is a mandatory requirement for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 182A of the Karnataka Land Revenue(Amendment)Act and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Alternatively, Smt.Reshma, would contend that since the petitioner is first time offender and being a lady, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction may set aside the sentence of imprisonment by enhancing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order. 8. He would further contend that admittedly, the land which was in occupation of revision petitioner is a Government land. Tahasildar had issued a several notices against the revision petitioner to vacate the land. However, the revision petitioner went onpostponing the vacating the Government land on one pretext or the other and she has filed application to Tahasildar to grant the land in her name, which was recommended by Tahasildar. 9. Deputy Commissioner rejected the recommendation made by the Tahasildar. Thereafter, revision petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petition which also on merit came to be dismissed. Thereafter also the revision petitioner continued to occupy the land illegally resulting in initiating criminal action - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 against the accused by the then Tahasildar, which on contest resulted in conviction of the revision petitioner as aforesaid and therefore, order of the Deputy Commissioner is just and proper and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that the impunged orders are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity or suffering from patent factual defect and thus call for interference.? 2) Whether the sentence needs modification? 3) What order? Regarding point No.1 11. In the case on hand, the land which was in occupation of the accused to an extent of 5.52 acres is a part of Government land bearing Sy.No.286/1 totally - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 measures 151.95 acres situated near Varadapura village. When admittedly, the land is a Government land, the burden is on the accused to show that she is the owner of the property. Having received the notice from the Tahasildar to vacate the said land which was in illegal occupation, she applied for grant of the land to the Tahasildar. Tahasildar recommended the same. 12. But, learned Deputy Commissioner found that there was no merit in the request made by the accused and refused the recommendation made by the Tahasildar. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed a writ petition before this Court which also came to be dismissed on merits. 14. But accused failed to vacate the land despite notices being received by her from the Tahasildar, Hagaribommanahalli. 15. Therefore, learned trial Judge recorded a categorical finding based on the material evidence on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 record that accused willfully disobeyed the order of the Tahasildar and therefore, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 447 and 188 of IPC r/w Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act. 16. As could be seen from the material evidence on record, even after re-appreciation, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity especially in view of the fact that the Civil litigation fought by the accused ended up in getting the writ petition dismissed at the hands of this Court. 17. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences is based on sound and logical reasons and the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to term the impugned judgment as suffering from legal infirmity, perversity or for that matter with any patent factual error. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 18. In the case on hand, accused being a lady and first time offender, taking note of the fact that she has now vacated the land, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3: 19. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction to the accused for the offence under Sections 447 and 188 of IPC r/w Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Amendment Act, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by First Appellate Court is modified as under: a) Revision petitioner shall pay enhanced fine of Rs.50,000/- in two installments. First installment - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4435 CRL.RP No. 100038 of 2018 amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid on or before 30.03.2025 and second installment amount of Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.04.2025 by setting aside the imprisonment. b) Failure to make the payment of enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate. c) Office is directed to return the trial Court records forth with along the copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37