- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1013 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No. 1014/2018 BETWEEN: 1. P.M. IBRAHIM ALIAS UMBAI S/O LATE MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VATEKADU PAISARI HODDUR VILLAGE MURNAD MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT PIN - 571 201 2. P M ABDUL JALEEL ALIAS JALI S/O LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O BALMURI VILLAGE & POST MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT PIN - 571 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 01 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI DATED 10.07.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.30/2013 AND 41/2013 AND IN C.C.NO.1488/2009 DATED 25.04.2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI, KODAGU. IN CRL.RP NO. 1013/2018 BETWEEN: 1. P.M. IBRAHIM ALIAS UMBAI S/O LATE MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT VATEKADU PAISARI, HODDUR VILLAGE, MURNAD, MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 2. P.M. ABDUL JALEEL @ JALI S/O LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O BALMURI VILLAGE AND POST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAPOKLU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-1 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI DATED 10.07.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.31/2013 AND 42/2013 AND IN C.C.NO.1489/2009 DATED 25.04.2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI, KODAGU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Prasanna D.P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Wahida, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. In both the revision petitions, accused Nos.1 and 2 are the revision petitioners. There are two different incidents arising out of CC No.1488/2009 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code confirmed in Criminal Appeals No.30/2013 and CC No.1489/2009 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, confirmed in Crl. Appeal No.41/2013. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petitions are as under : 3.1 In respect of theft of thirty bags of coffee beans, petitioners along with third accused by name M.A. Abdulla alias Thondi, a case came to be registered. Initially - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 the case was registered against unknown persons and later on, on credible information petitioners were apprehended and stolen coffee bags were recovered. Identification of the accused persons took place in the police station and further statements were recorded. Later on, police filed a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.2 Further, learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and framed charges. Accused pleaded not guilt. Therefore, the trial was held. 3.3 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, took cognizance and in respect of accused no.4 namely A.M. Sajeer, split-up charge sheet came to be filed. 3.4 In order to prove the case of the prosecution, twelve witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12 and fifteen documents were placed on record vide Exhibits P1 to P15 in CC No.1488/2009. Iron rod which was used in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 the incident for entering into the premises for breaking open the premises is marked as M.O.1 and photographs were marked as Exhibits C1 to C4. Likewise, in CC No.1489/2009, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and sixteen material documents were placed on record as Exhibits P1 to Exhibit P16. 3.5 There was no explanation offered by the accused to the incriminatory circumstances which were put to them after culling out from the prosecution evidence. 3.6 Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused persons (revision petitioners) for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.7 Being aggrieved by the same, in respect of both the judgments, appeals came to be filed as referred supra. 3.8 During the course of appeal, accused No.3 died and therefore case stood abetted insofar as accused no.3 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 and in respect of accused no.4, still split of charge sheet is pending before the Trial Magistrate. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners are before this Court in these revision petitions. 5. Sri. D.P. Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on suspicion, petitioners were arrested by the police and there was no identification in respect of the accused persons and therefore sought for allowing the revision. 6. Alternatively Sri. Prasanna would contend that first accused was in custody for about seventeen days and second accused was in custody for more than two years and therefore, custody period already undergone by them may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably in respect of both the cases. 7. Per contra, Smt. Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader would support the impugned judgments and oppose the revision grounds in toto. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 8. She would further contend that in respect of two theft incidents, separate criminal cases are filed in CC No.1488/2009 and CC No.1489/2009 after recovery of the stolen coffee bags. Petitioners have been arrested and they have been identified by the respective complainants in the police station which would conclude the offence and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 9. She would also contend that no mercy can be shown to the petitioners as they are known thieves and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petitions in toto. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted that in a matter of this nature, recovery of the stolen article at the instance of the accused completes the offence especially if there is no proper explanation offered by the accused persons. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 12. Admittedly, the accused persons in the case on hand were not able to offer any explanation for possessing thirty bags of coffee beans. 13. Investigation agency did not nurture any previous enmity nor animosity to falsely implicate the present revision petitioners in the case. 14. Moreover why would the Investigation Agency implant thirty bags of coffee beans only to foist a false case against the petitioners is a question that remains unanswered. 15. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference especially in the absence of any explanation whatsoever to the incriminatory circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. 16. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioners seeking lenience or mercy. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 17. Though Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the submission seeking lenience to the petitioner, since The petitioners are only apprehended in respect of these two cases and there is aa observation by the Trial Magistrate in the order regarding sentence that there are no other criminal antecedents against the petitioners, they are to be treated as first time offenders. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the custody period already undergone by accused Nos.1 and 2 as referred to supra if treated as period of imprisonment by directing them to pay enhanced fine of Rs.75,000/- each in respect of both the cases, ends of justice would be met. Out of the fine amount recovered if sum of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant in each of the cases as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ends of justice would be further served. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 19. Accordingly, following Order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition are allowed-in-part. (ii) While maintaining the convictions of the accused persons for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 in both the cases namely CC No.1488/2009, confirmed in the Criminal Appeal No..30/2013 and CC No.1489/2009, confirmed in the Criminal Appeal No.41/2013, the sentence ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in respect of both the cases, is hereby modified by directing the custody period undergone by the accused persons as period of imprisonment for the proved offences and directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- each in the respect of both the cases on or before 25.05.2026. (iii) Out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to CW-1 Sri. B.M. Ganapathy @ Raja in Crl.P.No.1014/2018 and the complainant - Sri. K.S. Kushalappa @ - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23084 CRL.RP No. 1014 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1013 of 2018 Thammuni in Crl.RP No.1013/2018 as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as aforesaid, petitioners shall undergo imprisonment ordered by Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court one after the other in CC No.1488/2009 and CC No.1489/2009. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order forthwith, for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50