- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1337 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND: SRI NASIR S S/O YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT RUTINOPINADKA HOUSE, OLAMOGRU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.574201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VARUN SRI.Y FOR SRI SACHIN.B.S, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K. IN C.C.NO.731/2014 DATED 12.07.2017 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K., IN CRL.A.NO.5034/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 353, 504 AND 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri Varun Sai Y., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sachin B.S., counsel for the respondent. 2. State is in revision challenging the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.731/2014, confirmed in Crl.A.No.5034/2017. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. Based on the complaint lodged by Sri Viswanatha, Puttur Rural Police have registered a case in Crime No.41/2012 for the offences and punishable under Section 353, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 3.2. As per the prosecution case, complainant was working as a conductor in KSRTC department since 19 years. On 11.04.2012, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.K.A.19-F- 2201 was proceeding from Puttur to Sullia. Sri Vishwanatha Rai was the driver and complainant was the conductor. Accused being the passenger, picked up quarrel in respect of non- payment of the change amount after purchasing the ticket and abused the complainant in Malayalam language in filthy words. Because of his picking up the quarrel, complainant was not in a position to discharge his official work and therefore action was initiated. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and placed on record seven documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. 5. On behalf of the accused, contradictory statement of P.W.1 was marked at Ex.D1. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after hearing the parties, appreciated the material evidence on record and noted that the material evidence was not sufficient enough to convict the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code inter alia holding in paragraphs 11 to 17 as under: 11. PW.2 Gangadhara Rai, being passenger in KSRTC bus in which the accused deposed that, the accused was traveling along with the complainant deposed that, the accused abused the complainant in Maliyalam language with regard to hand over change to the accused. It is admitted by the PW.2 that, the accused paid Rs.100/- to the complainant and purchased his ticket and travelling in the bus. The accused telephoned to some other persons regarding the exchange of words between the complainant and accused, also put his leg across the complainant and deterred the complainant from discharging his duty. The complainant himself has not deposed regarding the obstruction created by the accused from discharging his duty by putting his leg across. There is improvement in the evidence of PW.2 in this regard. The conductor and driver of the bus straight away took the bus to the police station and filed complaint. Ex.P2 mahazar drawn in the police station. The learned counsel for the accused subjected the PW.2 for cross-examination and denied the alleged offences committed by the accused. PW.2 is not aware as how many passengers were travelling in the bus. The accused had purchased the ticket, but he has not seen as to whether the accused had paid Rs.100/- to the complainant. PW.2 being the passenger further deposed that, he has given his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 statement before the concerned police regarding obstruction created by the accused by putting his leg across. But, statement recorded by the I.O., does not disclose this fact. The evidence of PW.1 and 2 reveals that, there was exchange of words between the complainant and accused regarding hand over the change after deducting the ticket amount. Exchange of words in Maliyalam language by the accused and the conductor is not aware about Maliyalam language. But the conductor under stood the language used by the accused as abusive word. 12. PW.3 Ragahvendra being the driver of the KSRTC bus deposed that, the accused was speaking to the complainant loudly in the bus. The bus was not reached to the Sullia, but it was taken to the police station. PW.3 has been treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned APP. He denies the statement said to have been given before the I.O., as per Ex.P3. 13. PW.4 Babu and PW.5 Ramakrishna turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged offences committed by the accused. Statement said to have been given before the I.O., as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 denied by the PW.4 and PW.5. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.4 and PW.5 even during the course of cross- examination by the learned Assistant Public prosecutor. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 14. PW.6 Vishwanatha Rai being the driver of KSRTC Bus deposed that, the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant on Puttur Sullia bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-F-2201 on 11-4-2012. Therefore, Bus was taken to police station and the complainant and PW.6 were not able to discharge their duty as driver and conductor of the Bus. The bus was seized by the concerned police. The learned counsel for the accused subjected the PW.6 for cross-examination and denied the alleged offences committed by the accused. The defence set up by the accused that, the complainant had not hand over the change even though the accused paid cash of Rs.100/-. Exchange of words between the complainant and accused resulted in taking the Bus to the police station. Offence of criminal intimidation alleged to have been committed by the accused is not established by the prosecution. 15. PW.7 G.Appayya Naik being the Traffic Controller, Puttur, he deposed that, he has issued Ex.P6 document to show that, the complainant and PW.6 were in duty in KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA- 19-F-2201. 16. PW.8 U.B.Nanda Kumar, being the PSI, Puttur Rural police station, deposed that, on 12-04-2012 the ASI of said police station arrested the accused and produced the him before this Court. PW.8 collected Ex.P6 document from KSRTC and filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 17. PW.9 Suresh Naik, being the retired ASI Puttur Rural police station, deposed that, on 11-4-2012 he received the compliant Ex.P1 and drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P2. He further deposed that, he has recorded the statement of witnesses and hand over the further investigation to PW.8. It is significant to note that, the prosecution able to prove that, the accused was travelling in the bus and the complainant was working as conductor in the said bus. There was exchange of words between the complainant and accused in different language. The complainant under stood the words as abusive one and incident took place due to failure on the part on the complainant to hand over the change after deducting the ticket amount. Asking the complainant to pay the change resulted in exchange of words between the complainant and accused. But it does not amount to offence punishable U/Sec.504 and 506 of IPC. The complainant discharged his duty in the said bus, but the said bus was taken to the police station. The complainant has issued ticket to the other passengers of the said bus. Use of assault or criminal force to deter the public servant form discharge his duty is not established by the prosecution under the facts and circumstance of case. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 4 in NEGATIVE.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal against order of acquittal before District Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 8. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the State inter alia holding in paragraph 30 of the judgment as under: 30. On appreciation of entire evidence on record it is found that there is no any merit in the appeal. The grounds of appeal memo are sans merits. The trial court by well reasoned order rightly acquitted the accused. The prosecution has not made out any reasonable or acceptable grounds to interfere in the acquittal judgment of the trial court. Hence, there is no force in the arguments of learned P.P. On the other hand there is considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for appellant. Accordingly. I answer points no.1 and 2 in the negative.” 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, State is before this Court in this revision. 10. Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that both the Courts have committed grave error in not properly appreciating the material evidence on record especially the oral testimony of the complainant which was sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the accused and sought for allowing the revision. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 11. Per contra, Counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, learned Trial Magistrate and learned judge in the First Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the material evidence on record noted that material evidence is not sufficient enough to convict the accused. 14. Further, an order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted Court, upheld by the First Appellate Court, serves as triple innocence insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned. 15. No compelling circumstances are found on record so as to interfere with the impugned judgments in the limited revision jurisdiction. 16. Likewise, the material evidence in the form of oral testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to hold that action attributable to the accused was not sufficient enough to come in the way of PW1 discharging the official work. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20542 CRL.RP No. 1337 of 2018 17. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by both the Courts in the revisional jurisdiction. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67