- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 53 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 17TH CORSS, 6TH MAIN, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070. 2. SANTHOSH @ KAPPEQ S/O SHYAMASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.56, I MAIN, VALLABH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061. 3. ADI @ ADITYA BHAT, S/O S B BHAT AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, 2ND MIAN, 2ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 AND: 1. STATE BY BANASHANKARI P S BANGALORE-560 070 REPRSENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.4316/2002 BY THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27.01.2010 ON THE FILE OF III-ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION BY APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.213/2010 BY ITS JUDGMENT DTD. 23.12.2014 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-XIII, AT BENGALURU THE PETITIONERS MAY BE ACQUITTED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Shankarappa S., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused who have been convicted in CC No.4316/2002 dated 27.01.2010 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.145/2010 and 213/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC though charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC. 3. Stolen articles were seized from the custody of the accused after they were arrested and were recovered and conviction order came to be upheld on the ground of recovery of the stolen articles. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners during the course of arguments, with vehemence, in his usual style, contended that trial before the learned Trial Magistrate is suffering from lacunae and therefore, very conviction itself is incorrect. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 5. He would point out that though the technical defects in the trial was brought to the notice of the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, without even addressing those points, mechanically learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has upheld the order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, on the ground that recovery of huge quantity of the gold and diamond ornaments has taken place, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 7. He would further emphasize that among the accused persons, two of them have been married and one of the parents of the accused is suffering from cancer and he has remained unmarried to serve his parents. There is remorse expressed by each of the accused persons and incident has occurred when they were in the young age and therefore, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should have been granted to the revision petitioners which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition in part. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State opposes the revision grounds in toto. 9. He would further submit that signature being not made on the accused statement did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Insofar as alternate submission of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that merely on the ground that 25 years have been elapsed from the date of incident would not ipso facto efface the criminality involved in the incident and mere passage of time is not a ground to show lenience to the revision petitioners and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that a serious mistake has crept in conduct of the trial before the learned Trial Magistrate. Accused statement is not properly signed by all the accused persons in each of the pages and a common accused statement has been recorded and signature is obtained on the last page which is improper recording of the accused statement. 13. It is needless to emphasize that recording of the accused statement is an important stage in the criminal trial which will serve dual service and not an empty formality. 14. In the first place, each of the accused persons are required to be given a fair opportunity of offering their explanation with regard to the incriminatory circumstances that are found against him. 15. Secondly, it would afford a reasonable opportunity for the accused to place his version on record. 16. In the case on hand, recording a common accused statement and obtaining their signature only on the last page of the accused statement would not be sufficient compliance of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 recording of accused statement which goes to the very root of the matter. 17. However, taking note of the irregularity which will not vitiate the criminal proceedings as is contemplated under Section 460 of Cr.P.C., the conviction order cannot be held to be bad only on that score. 18. Though the First Appellate Court was duty bound to address the said issue and record a finding, failed to address the said arguments. No doubt, it has resulted in irregularity. But the said irregularity would not vitiate the entire criminal proceedings as a whole. 19. Likewise, argument put forth on behalf of the accused that no opportunity was granted for leading the accused statement is incorrect in view of the fact that for question Nos.21 and 22, accused has answered in negative. 20. Therefore, order of conviction cannot be interfered by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction; more so, having regard to the recovery of the stolen articles from the custody of the revision petitioners. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 21. Further, why would the investigation agency plant valuable articles to falsely implicate the revision petitioners in a criminal case especially in the absence of previous enmity or animosity. 22. This would take this Court to the last submission that charge was framed under Section 387 and 380 of IPC. 23. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that when there is a charge for the higher offence and conviction for a lower offence, no opportunity needs to be granted for the accused to have their say in the matter. Converse is impermissible. 24. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court that too having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds for altering the conviction order recorded by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 25. Having said so, taking note of the fact that incident is 25 years old and has occurred when the accused were in their young age and they are now well settled, taking note of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 the custody period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each payable by the accused persons on or before 10.04.2026, would meet the ends of justice in the attendant peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each payable by the accused persons on or before 10.04.2026 before the learned Trial Magistrate. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 10.04.2026, sentence ordered by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14436 CRL.RP No. 53 of 2015 learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46