- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100188 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SIDDAPPA M. HARIJAN S/O. MUREGEPPA HARIJAN, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. C/21, SHIVANAGAR, SWATANTRA YODHAR COLONY, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (KOTTUR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION SENTENCE PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.A.NO.5049/2015 DATED 08.08.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN C.C.NO.143/2014 DATED 05.10.2015 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 409 & 420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:35:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.B.Anwar Basha, 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.143/2014 dated 05.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Section 409 and 420 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for both the offences. 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5049/2015. 4. Thereafter, accused is before this Court, in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner after addressing the arguments at length, contended that in the event, this court, upholding the order of conviction, taking - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 note of the fact that accused/revision petitioner is now aged about 70 years and he was cashier in State Bank of Mysore and accused is now suffering from old age ailments and therefore, period of custody may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 6. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Devaredddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material available on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of material on record, it is seen that the incident had 07.05.2013 and complaint came to be filed on 07.08.2013. 9. After prolonged trial, accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 10. Appeal filed by the accused also came to be dismissed on merits of the matter. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 11. As such, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court unable to accept the arguments on behalf of the accused that conviction order is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. 12. Accused being the cashier of State Bank of Mysore, was unable to account for the amount that has been collected by him in the cash counter in the evening hours and the cash book, cash receipts and account books did not tally and there was a shortage. After the internal inquiry, complaint came to be lodged on 07.08.2013 and therefore, conviction order needs to be maintained. 13. This would take the this Court to the next limb of the arguments addressed on behalf of the revision petitioner that lenient view may be taken having regard to the age of the revision petitioner. Accused is aged 70 years as of now and is suffering from several old age aliments. 14. Moreover, since the misappropriated amount is already made good by the revision petitioner to the bank, taking note of the present health condition of the revision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 petitioner, if three months imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate for each of the offences is modified by directing the custody period is already undergone by the accused and to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- ends of justice would be met. 15. Accordingly, following order is passed ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in sum of Rs.25,000/- in respect - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6651 CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2018 of both the offences payable on or before 15.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced payment on or before 15.05.2025 would result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV,AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1