- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 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. 100383 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. GOUS MOHIDDIN MANIYAR S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: SHE BAZAR, BANKAPUR, HAVERI DISTRICT-581202 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.155/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR AND C.C.NO. 27/2017 ORDER DATED 01.12.2018. ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KARWAR AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.155/2018 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KARWAR IN C.C.NO.27/2017 BY ITS ORDER V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.03 14:36:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 DATED 01.12.2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 486 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.27/2017 confirmed in Crl.A.No.155/2018 and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, ‘IPC’) and simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 486 of IPC, is the revision petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 4. Essential facts which are required for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner that on 24.08.2015 at 12:00 noon in Karwar market behind Lakshmi Complex near Hoovina Chouka, accused found selling duplicate Rajesh Beedi by cheating the complainant’s Company and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 486 of IPC. After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.155/2018. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 8. Sri Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that both the Courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offenses in the absence of proper proof. 9. He would also contend that to establish that it is the accused who was responsible for duplicating the design, there is no proper evidence. As such, conviction of the accused for the office punishable under Section 486 of IPC is thus impermissible. 10. He would also contend that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not re-appreciate the material on record in proper manner resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Sri Praveen, alternatively would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 reasonable fine may be imposed by setting aside the imprisonment and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent opposes the revision grounds and supports impugned judgments. 13. He would further contend that the very fact that the accused was selling Rajesh Beedi in front of Prakash Agencies in Karwar city, which is situated near Hoovina Chouka behind Lakshmi Complex in the market area of Karwar itself shows that he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC as admittedly the seized beedi packets were not the original Rajesh beedi. 14. He would further contend that duplication and counterfeiting the trademark of Rajesh beedi has resulted in commission of the offence under Section 486 of IPC, which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 requires no interference by this Court in this revision petition having regard to the scope of revisional jurisdiction and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 15. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara contends that in a matter of this nature, where there is a proved offence, if the Court shows any mercy or lenience to the revision petitioner, it would not only send the wrong message to the society, but also encourages the similarly situated perpetrators of the crime to indulge in such activities in future and sought for dismissal of revision petition in toto. 16. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the recovery of the duplicate Rajesh beedi from the custody of the accused is established by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. 18. Panchanama, whereunder the duplicate beedies were seized has been established by placing necessary evidence on record. Admittedly, the seized beedies were not belonging to Rajesh Beedi Company. Therefore, it was a duplicate beedi. Further, the trademark that is found on the beedi packet was not the trademark of Rajesh beedi. Therefore, necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 486 of IPC also established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 19. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming by the accused while recording the accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter in a cumulative matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 420 and 486 of IPC. 21. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only re-appreciated the material evidence on record but also supplemented few more reasons to sustain the order of conviction for the aforesaid offences. 22. Having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments so as to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts. Therefore, conviction needs to be maintained. 23. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument viz., the appropriate sentence. Shri Praveen Tarikar contends that the accused is a first time offender and therefore, mercy can be shown to him. 24. Taking note of the fact that there is no antecedents to the accused and taking note of the fact that duplicate beedi is already seized and the circulation of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 duplicate beedi has thus stopped, setting aside the sentence by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be paid as compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 486 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and two months for the offence punishable under Section 486 of IPC is hereby set aside by directing the accused- petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- on or before 30th April, 2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552 CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023 the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Further, out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under due identification. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order for issuing the modified conviction order. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 19