- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 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. 100343 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALLAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA TATTINMANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION. NIL, R/O. SANGRESHIKOPPA VILLAGE, TALUK: SOUDATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, PIN- 591126. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SAUDATTI PSI, REPRESENTED BY ITS, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. PIN- 580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CONVICTION DATED 03.06.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 467/2019, PASSED BY THE IXTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BELAGAVI AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 IN C.C.NO. 1062/2010 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAUNDTTI AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 409 OF IPC IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND KINDLY GRANT OTHER RELIEF DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS OF AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BE AWARDED AN ORDER MAY KINDLY BE PASSED ACCORDINGLY TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt.Joshna P. Dhanave, 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.1062/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of one month simple imprisonment. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. Petitioner was the Branch Post Master in Sangreshikoppa Post Office. One Fakkirappa Madivalar had an S.B.Account bearing No.514252 in the said Post Office. On 20.12.2002, said Fakkirappa Madivalar deposited sum of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner having received the same, did not account the same to the account of the Post Office though he made an entry in the passbook about receipt of Rs.10,000/-. 3.2. When the said mischief of the revision petitioner came into light, an internal enquiry was conducted and later on, criminal complaint came to be lodged against the revision petitioner. 4. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 5. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.467/2019. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that order of conviction recorded by both the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 Courts is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Alternatively, she would contend that in the event of this Court, upholding the order of conviction, may consider the age of the revision petitioner being 70 years and he has been dismissed from the service. As such, this Court may set aside the imprisonment by considering the custody period undergone by the revision petitioner as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, case of prosecution predominantly hinged on the documentary evidence apart from the oral evidence. M.O.1 is the S.B. general diary, M.O.2 is the B.O. Account book, M.O.3 is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 the passbook account bearing No.514252 and M.O.4 is the Post Office receipt. 14. S.B. General Book and B.O. Book were seized under Ex.P.9 mahazar and Ex.P.5 is passbook wherein signature of the accused is found for having received sum of Rs.10,000/-. However, entries were not passed and cash was not deposited to the account of Sangreshikoppa Post Office which has been established by the prosecution by placing necessary evidence on record. 15. Taking note of the same, order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and patent factual error cannot be countenanced in law and hence, order of conviction needs to maintained. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 17. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that lenient view may be taken, taking note of the fact that it is an isolated incident that has occurred in the service of the revision petitioner is concerned and also taking note of the fact that, revision petitioner is now aged about 70 years and he has undergone eight days custody period during the course of trial, treating the custody period as period of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC by directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.40,000/-, would meet the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6719 CRL.RP No. 100343 of 2023 the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the custody period already undergone by the revision petitioner as period of imprisonment and further, revision petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.40,000/- on or before 15.05.2025. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 15.05.2025, would result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 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-GTB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12