- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100081 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: YALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA AKKI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARALIHONDA-581204, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION ORDER DATED 23.02.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, AT DHARWAD IN CRL. APPEAL NO.46/2018 AND THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KALAGHATAGI IN C.C. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:33:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 NO.138/2015 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353 AND 504 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Mallikarjun S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.138/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 504 of IPC and sentenced as under: “Hence accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. Further accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Both the sentence shall run concurrently.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.46/2018. Said appeal came to be dismissed. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by Panchayat Development Officer (hereinafter PDO for short), Kalaghatki Police registered a case on 04.02.2015. Complaint averments would reveal that when complainant was present in the Taluka Panchayat Office on 04.02.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., accused said to have appeared in the office and enquired about the payment that was due from the administrative office in respect of the public work carried by the accused in Gudigeri village. When there was no proper answer given by the complainant, there was a rift and accused started to abuse the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him whereby, he was restrained from discharging the public work properly. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 5. Based on the complaint, police registered a case on 04.02.2015 for the offences punishable under Section 353 and 504 of IPC in Crime No.37/2015. 6. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the police. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 8. In the trial, eye witness and complainant having supported the case of the prosecution, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.46/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 23.02.2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that incident has occurred at the spur of the moment when there was no reply given by the complainant in respect of the pending bill of the accused. 13. He also emphasized that without there being any proper reasons, pending bill of the accused was not processed by the complainant for the public work carried out by him as per the orders issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, Taluka Panchayat Office, Kalaghatgi. Therefore, no ingredients are established to attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC and a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion by the prosecution which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 14. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court may consider the fact that accused is not having any criminal antecedents and therefore, may enhance the fine amount reasonably and set aside the order of imprisonment. 15. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 16. He would further contend that voluntarily, accused picked up the quarrel with the PDO and abused and assaulted him. 17. He would further emphasize that PDO is not the person who is required to pass the bill. Therefore, assaulting and abusing the complainant is nothing but hindering the discharge of official work by the PDO, resulting in completing the offence under Section 353 of IPC and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 18. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he would contend that if this Court shows any leniency to the people like revision petitioner, same would encourage similarly placed perpetrators of the crime to commit such offences in future and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revision petitioner makes out a case that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus, calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? REG.POINT No.1: 21. In the case on hand, admittedly, complainant is PDO of Taluk Panchayat Office, Kalaghatgi. Incident has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 occurred on 04.02.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., inside the office of the complainant. 22. Even according to the case of the prosecution, accused had visited the office for enquiring the pending bill. Complainant being PDO, gave his reply that it is not his job to process the bill. 23. At that juncture, accused being enraged with the answer given by the complainant, assaulted the complainant and also abused him in filthy language. 24. Prosecution examined eye witnesses to the incident as P.W.3 and 7, who have supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is the mahazar witness who has also supported the case of the prosecution. 25. P.W.6 is yet another eye witness who has pacified the quarrel. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that she was not present and she has not witnessed the incident. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate as prosecution witnesses did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the accused is just and proper. 27. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly reappreciated the material evidence placed on record while dismissing the appeal. 28. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter unless there is any patent factual error or legal infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts. 29. Accordingly, conviction needs to be maintained. Hence, point No.1 is answered in negative. REG.POINT No.2: 30. In the case on hand, admittedly, accused had visited the office of the complainant for enquiring about - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 the pending bill. Incident has occurred at the spur of the moment. Petitioner does not possess any criminal antecedents and he is a first time offender. 31. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that if 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. Portion of the fine amount can also be paid as compensation to the complainant - PDO. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. REG.POINT No.3: 32. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 504 of IPC, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6496 CRL.RP No. 100081 of 2019 sentence of 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/- to be payable on or before 15.05.2025. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as ordered by this Court, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. iv. Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 – complainant under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issuing modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37