- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100216 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANAMANTAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA TALAWAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: AGRAHAR, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.57/2012 AND ALSO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.11.2012 IN C.C.NO.48 /2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM HAVERI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.02 11:20:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.48/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 4 years for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 6 months is the revision petitioner. 3. Order of conviction and sentence was also confirmed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.57/2012. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner and three other accused of which split-up charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.3 and 4. Charge sheet material would reveal that one T.D.Rajanna and his wife Smt.Selvi were cheated by stating they have got old gold and due to financial problem, they intended to sell the same. 5. Being the lured by the offered made by the accused persons, complainant and his wife parted away sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. When they came to known that they have been cheated, they approached Haveri Town Police and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against accused persons, interalia arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. From the voluntary information given by the accused No.2, sum of Rs.3,88,600/- was recovered and the same was given to the interim custody of the complainant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 6. After thorough trial, accused was convicted and sentenced. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.57/2012. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after thorough consideration of the material on record, re- appreciated the material on record and confirmed order of conviction and sentence. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has preferred this revision petition. 10. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that at the instance of accused sum of Rs.3,88,600/- being recovered, accused/revision petitioner is now leading a normal life along with his family members, lenience may be shown by setting aside the imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount reasonably. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the submission made on the revision petitioner by contending that accused No.2 is no doubt acquitted, but accused Nos.3 and 4 are still absconding and split-up charge sheet is pending and any order passed by this Court in this revision petition would affect the trial of the case as against accused Nos.3 and 4 in the trial Court and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. Admittedly, case against accused No.2 came to be acquitted and State did not filed any appeal. 13. Reason for acquittal of accused No.2 is that he is only receiver of the amount which was actually cheated by other accused persons and he repaid the same. Hence, sum of Rs.3,88,600/- which has been shown as recovery in the charge sheet and the same is also handed over to the PW.1. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 14. Fact of cheating would established that by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record especially recovery of sum of Rs.3,88,600/- from the custody of accused No.2. 15. Therefore, the only question that needs to be now considered by this Court is whether any lenience could be shown to the petitioner herein who has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period 4 years. 16. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni would submit that accused is the first time offender and therefore, leniency can be shown and he his now leading the normal prudent life with family members by eking out their livelihood by doing labour and other work. Taking note of the financial condition of the accused, reasonable fine amount may also be enhanced, if the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner. 17. Per contra, it is the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader that same would affect the intended trial in respect of accused Nos.4 and 3 were - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 against whom the split-up charge sheet is pending. To quell the Apprehension of the prosecution, suitable direction can be issued. 18. Taking note of the fact that incident is of the year 2018, if the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court would result in grave hardship. Imposing the enhanced fine of Rs.3,00,000/- to be payable in 3 equal installments commencing from 30.04.2025 by setting aside the imprisonment would meet ends of justice in the given case and entire enhanced fine amount can be paid as compensation to the PW.1 as well. 19. Accordingly, in view of the forgoing discussion, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the sentence of 4 years simple imprisonment ordered by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside directing the accused/revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in three equal installments commencing from 30.04.2025, 30.05.2025 and 31.06.2025 respectively. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the order sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) After the recovery of the fine amount, entire sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, is order to be paid as compensation to PW.1 under due identification. (v) It is made clear that modification of the sentence in this revision petition shall not affect the rights of the prosecution in respect of the intended trial as against accused Nos.3 and 4 against whom the split-up charge sheet is filed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605 CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017 (vi) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 30