- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100269 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. AMEN PASHA S/O. HIRE KHADARSAB AGASIMANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDAGUMPA, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 2. JANGLI @ BHASHA S/O. SHAMEEDSAB @ MUNDAA SALAGUNDA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICLTURE, R/O. BUDAGUMPA, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH KARATAGI POLICE STATION. …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 CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 20.12.2012, PASSED IN C.C.NO.1120/2009, BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, GANGAVATHI AND JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION DATED 13.08.2019 PASSED BY THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN CRL.A.NO.02/2013 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 FROM CHARGES UNDER SECTION 454 AND 380 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.A.M.Gundawade, 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.1120/2009 dated 20.12.2012 for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC and is sentenced as under: “Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 454 and read with Section 34 of IPC, and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 380 and read with Section 34 of IPC, and also sentence to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. The sentence shall run concurrently. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 Accused are entitled to claim set off for the period already spent in judicial custody. Copy of the judgment shall furnished to the accused free of costs. Interim custody of M.O. No.3 to 23 is made absolute. M.O. No.24 and 25 shall be returned to be complainant M.O. No.1 and 2 worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.02/2013. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that material evidence placed on record would not warrant interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as accused is the first time offender and he is now eking out his livelihood by joining a job in a decent manner. Therefore, suitable modification may be made with regard to the sentence. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that seized gold and silver articles marked at MO.3 to 23 and cash of Rs.10,000/- and TV set at MO.24 and 25, would be sufficient enough to maintain - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 the order of conviction and sentence and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate while passing the sentence, has noted that offence is heinous in nature and theft is not considered as heinous offence. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate grossly misunderstood the meaning of heinous offence and failed to accord the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, though he noted that accused is of young age and there is a scope for reformation. 8. Taking note of the fact that stolen articles have already been recovered and given to the custody to its owner, this Court is of the considered opinion that by setting aside the imprisonment of six months and one year for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC by directing the revision petitioners to pay fine of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 Rs.75,000/- each by directing the custody period already undergone by the accused as period of imprisonment, would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each to be payable by the accused persons on or before 31.05.2025. iii. Failure to pay the fine amount, would result in automatic restoration of the order of the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6575 CRL.RP No. 100269 of 2019 Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 31