- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100295 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: DEVENDRAPPA S/O GANGADHAR HUNGUNOD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SUTAGUNDAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N L BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PSI BAGALKOTE RURAL PS, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURTS BELOW AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.51/2016 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE J.M.F.C BAGALKOT IN CC NO.76/2012 DATED Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 23.08.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 408 OF IPC PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 409 OF IPC PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR SIX MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE PETITIONER SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devarediyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) in C.C.No.76/2012 and sentenced as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 “The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for the offence punishable U/Sec. 408 of IPC. In default to make payment of fine, the accused/convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for the offence punishable U/Sec.409 of IPC. In default to make payment of fine, the accused/convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence of imprisonment runs concurrently.” 3. The order of conviction and sentence is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.51/2016. 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Accused was working as postmaster in Suntagundar Post Office. During the course of employment on 16.02.2006, accused received sum of Rs.100/- as deposit amount towards the recurring deposit of CW.6. The R.D. account of CW.6 was maintained in account No.159042. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 However, he did not account the same in the account books. 5. Likewise, he again received sum of Rs.100/- on 17.02.2006 from C.W.7 and did not make necessary entry in the books of post office. Therefore, there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.200/- by revision petitioner. 6. After conducting the necessary internal enquiry, accused was removed from the service and criminal prosecution has been lodged against him. 7. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence under Sections 408 and 409 of the IPC, interalia arresting the accused. 8. After due trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 9. There was no explanation offered by the accused at the time of recording the accused statement except denying the incriminating circumstances. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.51/2016. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of parties and by considered judgment date 29.08.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. 12. Being further aggrieved by same, accused is before this Court. 13. Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that at the most common non posting the entry in the relevant account books of post office, would amount to irregularity and not illegality so as to proceed against the accused criminally for the offence under Sections 408 and 409 of the IPC. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 14. The said aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing revision petition. 15. Alternatively, Sri.N.L.Batakurki, would contend that after the incident came to light, revision petitioner having been dismissed from the service, ordering the imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Sections 408 and 409 of the IPC, would act hardly against the revision petitioner, who is also now in advanced age, thus sought for setting aside the imprisonment by treating the custody period already undergone by him as period of imprisonment, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 16. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the revision grounds with vehemence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 17. He also contends that accused has gone to extent of misusing the amount deposited in the RD account of C.W.6 and C.W.7 which has been established by placing necessary evidence on record and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that accused was the postmaster at Sutagundar Branch in Bagalkot Rural District is not in dispute. 20. Admittedly, CW.6 had the RD account No.159042 and C.W.7 had the RD account No.158391. Accused received sum of Rs.100/- as deposit from C.W.6 and C.W.7 on 16.02.2006 and 17.02.2006 respectively. However, after entering the passbook of C.W.6 and 7, he failed to deposit the same to the account of post office by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 making necessary entries in the RD and cash register and misused the same. 21. When the mischief played the accused came into light, there was internal enquiry and thereafter, criminal case came to be registered. 22. Case of the prosecution is predominantly rested on the documentary evidence inasmuch as passbook contained the entry for having received the deposit amount towards the RD accounts from C.W.6 and 7; but said amount was not remitted to the Government by making necessary entries in the RD registers and cash. Therefore, misappropriation of Rs.200/- belonging to C.W.6 and 7 in different occasions, stood established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 23. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on behalf of the accused in this regard. Accused being the post master, there was automatic entrustment of cash of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 post office as well as all books. There was a receipt of money from C.W.6 and 7 as could be seen from the entries in the passbook which is the handwriting of the accused. 24. Therefore, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 and 409 of IPC, needs no interference. 25. Taking note of the fact that accused is in advanced age and he is removed from the service, setting aside of imprisonment of one year by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7012 CRL.RP No. 100295 of 2019 Section 408 and 409 of IPC, imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 31.05.2025, failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC from paragraph Nos.1 to 17, KAV from paragraph Nos.17 to end. CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42