- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO 100195 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, O/O. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: NITYANAND HEGDE HEAD CASHIER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, GANGAVATHI BRANCH, GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2013 DATED 31.03.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL AND TO RE-EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF BOTH THE COURTS PROCEEDINGS AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 409 AND 420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the revision petitioner/State. None appears for the respondent/accused. 2. State is in this revision challenging the order of acquittal passed in CC No.246/2010 dated 10.01.2013 on the file of Prl. JMFC, Gangavathi for the offences punishable under Section 409 and 420 of IPC which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.21/2013 dated 31.03.2017 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A charge sheet came to be filed by Gangavathi Town Police against the respondent alleging that accused was cashier at State Bank of Mysore, Gangavathi Branch on 03.04.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., accused received sum - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 of Rs.72,82,505/- in the business of the bank. Even after the bank working hours completed, he could not account for sum of Rs.1,27,400/- to the complainant which is the amount that he had collected as a cashier and there was a deficit. 3.2. Based on the complaint lodged by the Manager, matter was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. 4. Accused stood for trial. After due trial, learned Trial Magistrate acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences noting the fact that the prosecution is unable to prove that there was misappropriation of the bank funds by the accused nor there was any material evidence to show that there was a wrongful loss caused to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.21/2013. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 31.03.2017, dismissed the appeal on merits. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, State is before this Court, in this revision petition. 8. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the revision petitioner/State reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and wrongly acquitted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. She would also contend that material evidence placed on record would go to show that as on the date of commission of the offence, there was a deficit of Rs.1,27,400/- and same was not accounted by the accused to the complainant. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 10. She also contended that even temporary misappropriation would be a punishable offence under Section 409 of IPC and therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside and accused needs to be convicted. 11. None appears for the respondent and therefore, this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of the State/revision petitioner. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, there was no positive evidence placed on record with regard to misappropriation of Rs.1,27,400/- which was accountable by the accused to the Manager of the State Bank of Mysore, Gangavathi Branch on 03.04.2009 nor there was any material placed on record that there was a wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the bank. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate after due trial, acquitted the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 13. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever a duly constituted Court records an order of acquittal, the innocence of the accused gets reinforced. 14. Further, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court exercising the appellate powers, reappreciated the material evidence on record and categorically recorded the finding that the material evidence is hardly sufficient to attract the offence under Section 409 and 420 of IPC and confirmed the order of acquittal. 15. Thus, before this Court, accused/respondent enjoys not double but triple innocence. Revision grounds are not so strong so as to hold that there is a patent factual error or legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment so as to reverse the judgments of both the Courts and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4424 CRL.RP No. 100195 of 2017 16. Moreover, if on the same set of facts, if two views are permissible, view which favours the accused must be preferred. Mere suspicion of a fact in issue would not take the seat of proof. 17. Applying the above principles to the case on hand, acquittal order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 18. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Bail bonds if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 28