- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23782 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1060 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SATHISHA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O PETE BEEDI, MALAVALLI TOWN PRESENTLY R/O GARIBI SITE GORAVALE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA - 577 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA EAST POLICE, MANDYA DIST, REPTD. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CHIEF JUDGE AND CIVIL JUDGE MAGISTRATE, MANDYA IN C.C.NO.81/2017 DATED 03.01.2017 AND LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO.9/2017 DATED 18.08.2017 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCS P/U/S 419,114 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23782 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri S. B. Halli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M M, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is accused no.1 in C.C.No.81 of 2007, which is a split-up charge sheet filed by Mandya East Police Station in respect of an incident that occurred on 17.06.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. The conviction of the petitioner is for the offence under Section 419 and 114 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 3. At the outset, Sri S. B Hally, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, co-accused persons have been shown mercy by this Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and modified the sentence till the raising of the Court and similarly could have been granted to the petitioner herein, but his financial condition would not permit for him to pay sum of ₹.1,00,000/- as the fine amount and therefore, the imprisonment itself may be reduced for the proved offences. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23782 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2017 4. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda M. M. learned HCGP would oppose the said submission of the counsel for petitioner inasmuch as petitioner got absconded even after filing the charge sheet and therefore, a split up charge sheet came to file and thereafter he has stood for the trial and ultimately has been convicted and therefore, no mercy can be shown. 5. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is the present petitioner, who was undergoing X-ray of his body parts and said X-ray was being given to the fake claimants to make their claim and obtain money from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Remaining accused persons assisted in the said criminal act. These aspects has been established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 6. Having regard to the limited revisional powers this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual error so as to interfere with the order of conviction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23782 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2017 recorded by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 7. This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the petitioner namely showing mercy. In fact, this Court has shown lenience in favour of the other two accused persons by directing them to pay sum of ₹.1,00,000/- and modified the sentence. But it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner in this case is unable to pay any amount towards the enhanced fine amount and therefore, period fo sentence may be modified. 8. Taking note of the fact that petitioner absconded himself and split up charge sheet came to be filed and also taking note of the financial conditions of the petitioner, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to one and half year, ends of justice would be met. 9. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23782 CRL.RP No. 1060 of 2017 Sections 419 & 114 R/w Section 34 IPC, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified. (ii) The petitioner is already in custody on account of executing the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, the period spent in the custody, petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (iii) Learned trial Magistrate shall issue necessary conviction warrant against the petitioner, who is in custody in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, for serving the remaining period of sentence, as per this modified order. (iv) Office is directed to return the trial Court records with a copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52