- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100004 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVANTAPPA HANUMANTAPPA KURI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAIRAPUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. DEVALEPPA LAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAIRAPUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PATIL M.H., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SAVANUR POLICE, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.56/2014 DATED 02.12.2019 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR IN CC NO.115/2009 DATED 04.09.2014, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 6 FOR THE ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AND CONVICTED HIM, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC.,. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for the accused- petitioners and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 6, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2014 passed in C.C. No.115/2009 by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savanur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.56/2014 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The allegation of the prosecution against the accused persons is that accused Nos.1 to 3 produced accused No.4, who bore a resemblance to their deceased - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 mother, Smt. Neelavva Kuri (who passed away on 08.02.2003), before the authorities of K.V.G. Bank for the purpose of availing a loan, and induced the Bank authorities to believe that accused No.4 was their mother. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are alleged to have executed the loan documents by forging the signature of the deceased Neelavva Kuri. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are alleged to have executed the loan documents as sureties, with the knowledge that accused No.4 was not the mother of accused Nos.1 to 3, and that their real mother had died on 08.02.2003. Accused Nos.1 to 4 availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from K.V.G. Bank, Savanur Branch, for the purchase of a tractor, with the intention of not repaying the same. 4. The charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, and 471 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. The accused examined 1 witness as DW.1 and marked 3 documents as Exhibits D1 to D3. 6. The trial Court convicted accused Nos.2 and 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the said offences. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.56/2014. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences charged. He contends that the finding recorded by the trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 Court convicting the accused is not supported by cogent evidence. Learned counsel further submits that, having regard to the year of the alleged offence and the age of the accused persons, the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of payment of fine. 9. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes that accused No.4 was impersonated by accused Nos.2 and 6 in furtherance of an illegal transaction, with the intention of not repaying the loan amount to the Bank. Learned AGA further contends that the acts committed by the accused demonstrate clear intent to cheat and impersonate, and that the essential ingredients of the charged offences have been duly proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 the evidence on record, and therefore, no ground is made out by the petitioners to warrant interference. 10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while taking this Court through the findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court in an attempt to demonstrate that the ingredients of the charged offences were not established by the prosecution, has, in the alternative, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified to one of payment of fine. However, on perusal of the evidence on record, as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, it is evident that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. 12. This Court has also independently examined the evidence on record and the findings recorded by both the Courts below. This Court, on such consideration, is of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 opinion that no case is made out for interference. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on the evidence and are supported by cogent reasoning. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction warrants no interference and is hereby confirmed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that the offence pertains to the year 2005, and that accused No.2/petitioner No.1 is aged about 75 years and is suffering from multiple ailments. It is further submitted that accused No.6/petitioner No.2 is aged about 50 years and both petitioners are stated to be uneducated and are alleged to have acted at the instance of certain other interested persons. 14. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the offence was committed more than 20 years ago and considering the advanced age of the petitioners, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence to some extent. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 petitioners to substitute the sentence of imprisonment with payment of fine alone is not acceptable, as the offences charged mandatorily prescribe a sentence of imprisonment. 15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of three years' imprisonment is modified to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. 16. In view of the above findings, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No.115/2009 dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Savanur, and the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.56/2014 passed by the I Additional - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8580 CRL.RP No. 100004 of 2020 District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence of imprisonment is modified from three years imprisonment to nine months. (iv) The petitioners shall be entitled to set off the period of sentence already undergone. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5