- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200062 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NIRANJANAYYA SWAMY S/O PANCHAKASHARAYYA SWAMY AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE R/O SHAHBAZAR, GDA COLONY KALABURAGI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH G DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH M B NAGAR POLICE STATION NOW REP. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH – 585 102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND C.C.NO.732/2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DATED 31.08.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.732/2004 AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.73/2015 DATED 11.07.2019 AND BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.732/2004 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.468, 471, 473, 420 AND 406 OF IPC. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 THIS PETITIONC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction for the offences under Sections 406, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused was doing the job of RTO Agent in Kalaburagi city and his office was situated beside the RTO Office, Kalaburagi. The respondent - police conducted a raid on the office of the accused on 20.09.2002 at about 07.45 a.m. and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 noted that, some forged documents and also seal of the RTO Office were there in the said office. The respondent - police learnt that, the accused was creating, fabricating and distributing the documents with an intention to cheat the customers as if those documents were genuine and issued by the competent authority. 4. Based on the registration of the case, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.52/2002 of respondent - police for the offences stated supra. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15 and also identified material objects M.O.1 to M.O.36. The Trial Court recorded the conviction and the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 6. Heard Sri Rajesh G. Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the order of the Appellate Court are contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, the same has to be set aside. 8. It is further submitted that, though it is stated that, the respondent - police have conducted a raid and seized certain documents stated to be forged and fabricated, the panch witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of evidence of the panch witnesses regarding the seizure of those documents, the entire allegations made against the petitioner ought to have been discarded. However, both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the accused / petitioner, which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that, the circumstantial evidence and expert opinion corroborated with each other. It is also established that, the documents were seized in the presence of the accused and also other mahazar witnesses. Those documents were sent for chemical analysis or FSL. The said FSL submitted a report stating that those documents are fabricated and created. Therefore, both the Courts have arrived at a conclusion that the accused has committed offences stated supra. Hence, interference with the said findings may not be necessary. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to refer the evidence of material witnesses. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 11. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police officials, supported the case of the prosecution. 12. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the witnesses to the seizure mahazar. Both the witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution in respect of seizure of documents from the shop of accused. 13. P.W.5 was working as a Head Constable, Crime Detective Division at Kalaburagi. He also supported the case of prosecution. 14. P.W.6 was working as a Head Constable. He also supported the case of prosecution. 15. P.W.7 was the doctor. He stated to have approached the accused for the purpose of getting the registration done to his new scooter. Though he had obtained relevant documents regarding registration, no original documents were available in the RTO Office. 16. Similarly, P.W.8 had also approached the accused to get his driving license done. He stated to have paid - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 Rs.4,000/-. However, the document which the accused had issued to him later on was found to be fabricated. 17. P.W.9 was working in the office of the RTO at Kalaburagi. He deposed that he knew the accused. He was running an agency and used to visit his office often. He stated to have learnt that the accused used to fabricate the documents relating to the vehicles and also used to issue the same to the public in order to cheat them. 18. P.W.10 was working at the RTO Office. He has supported the case. 19. P.W.11 is an independent witness. He had purchased TATA Sumo vehicle and the documents relating to the said vehicle had to be transferred to his name. Accordingly, he approached the accused and submitted the documents. His vehicle number is KA-32-N-1235. He was summoned by the respondent - Police in the year 2002 and he was told that though the documents were fabricated and false, he had not deposited any amount to the RTO to change the documents under proper channel. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 20. P.Ws.12 to 18 are the police officials, their evidence may not be necessary for discussion. 21. Now, it is relevant to refer the material witnesses. Entire case is revolving around forging of the documents. The alleged documents have been seized from the office of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The said panch witnesses have turned hostile regarding seizure of documents. Hence, the seizure of the said documents ought to have been discarded. 22. The prosecution, in order to prove that the accused had issued forged documents to the customers, examined those customers as three witnesses. They are, P.Ws.7, 8 and 11. 23. As per the evidence of P.W.7, he had purchased a new scooter and approached the accused for the purpose of getting his scooter registered. He had received the documents through the accused, however, he learnt that those documents had been forged and fabricated. He is stated to have handed over the documents to the concerned official. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 24. Similarly, the other two witnesses, namely, PWs.8 and 11 have also produced certain documents to demonstrate that the accused had issued those documents after having taken the requisite fees. It is further stated that, the documents were sent to FSL for clarification about the handwriting and also the seal. 25. The prosecution examined P.W.18 – M.Shankarappa, who was working as a Scientific Officer at FSL. According to him, he examined all the documents and submitted a report as per Ex.P13. Though, it appears that Form No.23 have been written by the accused in this case, the fact remains that, signature on the said documents were not belonging to the accused. Such being the case, the conviction in respect of all the offences stated supra cannot be sustained. 26. Admittedly, the accused was working as an agent and he used to fill the forms and submit to the authority for its approval and signature. Nowhere, it is stated in the case that the accused had forged the signature and seal etc. Both the Courts have committed an error in arriving at a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 conclusion that the accused has committed an offence., Therefore, the conviction held against the accused, in my considered view, appears to be not proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 27. It is needless to say that though the Revisional Courts are abstained from interfering with the concurrent findings. However, there is an exception that, in a case, if errors committed by the Courts below in appreciating the law, necessarily, interference must be required and such interference has to be justified. 28. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2015 in C.C No.732/2004 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Kalaburagi and its confirmation judgment and order dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4171 CRL.RP No. 200062 of 2019 11.07.2019 in Crl.A. No.73/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, are set aside. iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 406, 468, 471, 473, 420 of Indian Penal Code. iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3