- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1576 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SPOORABI @ SAPURA B W/O MOHAMMED ALI AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SRI IMAM SAB S/O HUSSAIN SAB AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KATENAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT – 577002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYANAGARA POLICE STATION DAVANGERE - 577005 REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DTD 18.09.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.35/2018 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.35/2018 by the appellate Court and the judgment dated 02.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.1552/2014 by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The case of the complainant against these petitioners that they are in possession of the articles worth of Rs.5,12,900/- without any proper and valid document and the said articles are stolen articles. The Trial Court considering the material on record, convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 98 of KP Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, directed to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 undergo sentence for a period of 15 days and M.Os.1 to 18 are directed to confiscated to State after appeal period due to accused have not satisfied account for possession of them. 4. The petitioners/accused persons have paid the fine amount of Rs.100/- but not even challenged the conviction order and only filed an appeal before the appellate court in respect of confiscation of Material Objects i.e., M.O.1 to 18. 5. The appellate court considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo with regard to the confiscation, held that M.O.1 to 18 are 204 grams 800 mili of gold and 700 grams of silver articles and total worth of the said articles are of Rs.5,12,900/- and the same were seized at the instance of these revision petitioners and no documents are placed before the trial Court. Since, no documents are produced before the Trial Court, confiscated the same. 6. The First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction was not challenged and also paid the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court and also made an observation that, in order to substantiate the fact that gold and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 silver articles belongs to them, the petitioner have not produced any document. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that those articles are stolen articles and hence, confiscated the same. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. In this revision petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in confiscating the gold and silver articles and both the Courts not properly evaluated the evidence available on record, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The counsel also contend that M.Os. 1 to 18 were ordered to be confiscated without affording any opportunity to establish the ownership. Hence, the order suffers from procedural irregularity in confiscation under Section 452/457 of Cr.P.C. The counsel would further contend that without clear finding regarding their involvement in the crime or ownership, the very conviction and confiscation is arbitrary and disproportionate. Hence, it requires interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that an application was filed before the First Appellate Court for amendment of appeal and the same was also rejected and the said order has not been challenged before this Court and it has attained its finality. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting, since the petitioners have not produced any document to substantiate that M.Os.1 to 18 belongs to them. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also rightly comes to the conclusion that when confiscation was made and the revision petitioners were convicted and when the conviction order was not challenged, question of considering this revision petition does not arise as the consideration before this Court is only if the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness, then this Court can exercise the revisional powers. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also considering the factual matrix of the case, the very allegation against the revision - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 petitioners is that they were in possession of stolen golden ornaments worth Rs.5,12,900/- without any proper and valid documents to prove that the same belongs to them. Even during the course of trial also, the petitioners have not placed any material. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 98 of K.P. Act. Having considered the material on record, when the revision petitioners have also not substantiated that the same belongs to them and when the conviction order was passed, the same was not challenged and admitting the guilt, the petitioners have paid the fine amount, when such being the case, the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that conviction order was not challenged and the petitioners admitting the guilt paid the fine amount. The First Appellate Court also made an observation that, in order to substantiate that the same belongs to them, nothing is placed on record. 10. First of all, when the Trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offences invoked against them, the petitioners ought to have challenged and questioned the same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28558 CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2025 in the appeal and the same was not done and an attempt made before the First Appellate Court for amendment of ground of the same was also rejected and the same was not challenged and it has also attained its finality. The conviction order has also attained its finality and an attempt made to amend the appeal also attained its finality. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of First Appellate Court also in dismissing the appeal. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise the revisional powers which are very limited and no error on the part of both the Courts. Therefore, no ground is made out to come to a conclusion that order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST