- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100174 OF 2017 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SUB-URBAN P.S., DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) AND: 1. ULAVAPPA SON OF BASAPPA MUMMIGATTI, AGE: 65, R/O. MANGUNDI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SHANTAVVA WIFE OF ULAVAPPA MUMMIGATTI, AGE: 50, R/O. MATHOD ONI, MANGUNDI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. S. SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.A.NO.122/2016 DATED 23.01.2017 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND REEXAMINE THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLANT COURT SO FAR IT RELATES TO IMPOSITION OF FINE AND RELEASING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED ON PROBATION UNDER 360 CR.P.C., AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.513/2009 DATED 23.09.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This criminal revision petition if filed by the Prosecution challenging the judgment dated 23.01.2017 passed in Crl.Appeal No.122/2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’ for short) modifying the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.513/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge & Principal JMFC., Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Muttavva Ulavappa Mummigatti lodged a complaint on 26.08.2008 alleging that her husband/accused No.1 married to Shantavva/accused No.2 and prior to marriage with Shantavva, accused No.1 relinquished his land in Sy.No.34 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas in favour of Muttavva/complainant on 27.04.1988 for her life maintenance. However, without the knowledge of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 complainant, the accused No.1 and 2 went to the Office of Sub-Registrar, Dharwad on 09.08.2007 and executed the gift deed in favour of the accused No.1 showing complainant as a donor by impersonating. The jurisdictional Police filed the charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The trial Court took the cognizance and framed the charges against both the accused for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked 22 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.22. 4. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where they denied the evidence of the prosecution. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of IPC. 5. The accused challenged the order of conviction in Crl.Appeal No.122/2016. The Appellate Court maintained the conviction, however, modified the sentence by directing the accused to pay fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each in addition to the fine amount already paid and directed the trial Court to release Rs.20,000/- out of the fine amount to the complainant-victim as compensation. The Appellate Court gave the benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and directed the accused to execute bonds as to their good conduct in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the same shall be in force for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bonds. 6. Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner-State submits that the Appellate Court has committed grave error in ignoring vital evidence on record. He submitted that the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution has convicted the accused but the Appellate Court without appreciating any of the aspect has given benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 though it is written as benefit under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. in the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to allow the revision petition by affirming the order of the trial Court. 7. Per contra, Sri.G.S.Savadatti, learned counsel for the accused supports the judgment of the Appellate Court and submits that the accused have paid the fine amount and submits that in terms of the bond executed, the accused have not committed any other offence since from the date of their release. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the revision petition. 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned AGA for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 9. The first wife of the accused No.1 filed a complaint alleging that in collusion of the second wife i.e.,accused No.2, accused No.1 executed a gift deed in his favour impersonating the complainant and gulf the property of the complainant. The trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 11, 12 and 13 convicted the accused for offences stated supra. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed the order of conviction. In my considered view, the approach of the Appellate Court is fully justified in affirming the conviction of the accused. However, the Appellate Court modified the sentence by directing the accused No.1 and 2 to pay fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each in addition to the fine amount already paid and directed the trial Court to release Rs.20,000/- out of the fine amount to the complainant- victim as compensation. In my considered view, the Appellate Court has fully justified in arising such conclusion considering the facts and circumstances of the case. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9483 CRL.RP No. 100174 of 2017 10. Further, considering Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the accused No.1 and 2 were released on probation for a period of two years on their good conduct. It is also submitted that the accused did not committed any offence and they have adhered to the conditions imposed by the Court and also executed a bond as directed by the Appellate Court. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the subsequent good conduct of the accused, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-State has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court calling interference in this revision petition. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is disposed off. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK, RH CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2