- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 955 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ASWATHNARAYANA REDDY. P S/O SRI PUTTA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.2/1, J R ARCADE J R LAYOUT, CHALLAKERE KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043 AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT NO.33/1, GAUTAM NIVAS, CHELAKERE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI RAMESH REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 EYARS Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 4. SRI SURENDRA BABU REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. SRI LOKESH REDDY S/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SRI DAMODARA REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R1 TO R6 ARE R/AT CHELEKERE VILLAGE KALYAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 043 7. STATE POLICE BY HENNUR POLICE REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2017 IN C.C.NO.24173/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE SAID COMPLAINT AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.7. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. Defacto complainant is the revision petitioner challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate after due trial in CC No.24173/2004 dated 07.02.2017 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.25125/2017 dated 04.05.2022. 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 4.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Hennur Police Station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short) said to have committed on 26.09.2001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 4.2. A complaint came to be lodged on 22.11.2002 i.e., more than one year two months after the alleged incident. 4.3. Case of the complainant is that there was a decree in favour of the complainant in O.S.No.6607/1999 in respect of the site bearing No.6 carved out of Sy.No.104 of Chelekere as the owner. 4.4. It was the contention of the complainant that accused persons with common intention, fabricated and created a layout plan showing said site as site No.7 and sold the same to accused No.6. 5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine five witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and placed on record 23 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 23. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 7. Among the five witnesses, complainant is examined as P.W.1. Among the documentary evidence placed on record, Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Exs.P.5 and 6 are the tax paid receipts and katha extracts, Ex.P.7 is the copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex.P.8 is the FIR, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the order passed in Crl.RP.No.545/2003, Ex.P.10 is the decree copy in O.S.No.6607/1999, Ex.P.11 is the copy of the sale deed, Ex.P.12 is the copy of the General Power of Attorney, Exs.P.13 and 14 are the certified copies of the layout plan, Ex.P.15 is the notarized copy of the demand register, Exs.P.16 and 17 are the revenue paid receipts, Ex.P.18 is the license of the village panchayat and Exs.P.19 to 21 are the certified copies of the letters, Ex.P.22 certified copy of the execution case No.2037/2001 and Ex.P.23 is the certified copy of RFA No.744/2001. 8. 8. On behalf of the accused, two documents were marked as Exs.D.1 and 2 namely certified copy of the deposition in O.SNo.6265/2003 and certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.6265/2003. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 9. Learned Trial Judge after recording the accused statement, noted that material evidence placed on record in the form of oral testimony of P.W.1 to 5 was not sufficient enough to attract the offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and recorded an order of acquittal. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25125/2017. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciaiton of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 04.05.2022. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court, in this revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 appreciated the material evidence on record and oral testimony of P.W.1 is wrongly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 14. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that State has taken a decision not to appeal as the judgment of the learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was just and proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the light of arguments putforth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, oral testimony of the complainant is nothing but reiteration of the complaint averments. 17. It is the case of the complainant that he has got a decree in O.S.No.6607/1999 which got confirmed the appeal before this Court in RFA No.744/2001 in respect of site No.6 carved out Survey No.104 of Chelekere village, Bengaluru. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 18. In his cross-examination, he clearly admits that Exs.P.9, 10, 13, 14, 22 and 23 are the Court proceedings and it has got nothing to do in establishing alleged fraud. 19. To attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain which is corresponding to the accused is to be established by placing cogent evidence on record. 20. Merely producing the decree copy in O.S.No.6607/1999 and copy of the judgment in RFA No.744/2001 would not ipso facto make out a case that accused persons have concocted a layout plan and sold site No.6 as site No.7 to accused No.6 by accused No.1. 21. Further, P.W.4 admitted that accused Nos.2 to 6 were present at the time of alleged incident i.e., on 10.10.2002 where P.W.1 has visited the spot that is the subject matter of the suit. 22. However, P.W.4 answered that accused Nos.2 and 6 who were present there but they did not have any conversation with them. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 23. Pertinently, it is to be noted that P.W.1 himself did not say that accused No.2 was present. Further, Kantamma who is the mother-in-law of the complainant is not cited as a witness and her presence at the spot is itself doubtful. 24. All these factors is taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate while appreciating the material evidence on record. 25. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that prosecution has failed to proof with cogent evidence that there was a common intention and with that common intention, accused persons fabricated a plan showing site No.6 as site No.7, carved out of Sy.No.104 of Chelekere village, Bengaluru and sold the same in favour of accused No.6. 26. It is borne in mind that order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted criminal Court would result in reinforcing the innocence of the accused which got fortified by the judgment of the First Appellate Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14719 CRL.RP No. 955 of 2022 27. In other words, respondent Nos.1 to 6 in the present revision petition not only enjoys double presumption but triple presumption. 28. Thus, having regard to the scope of revision petition in reviewing the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is too narrow and hence, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the matter for further consideration. 29. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49