- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.513 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR.B.PRAKASH CHANDRA JOSHI S/O BHAWARLAL JOSHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. NO. 162, KAMALA COMPLEX, KAVALBYSANDRA MAIN ROAD NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ATM R.T NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DJ HALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE C/C IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.APP NO.25064/2025 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09/03/2026 Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 06/01/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 11TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.25165/2011 IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 353 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is listed for admission. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.25165/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section of 353 IPC confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.25064/2025. 3. At the outset Sri M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 petitioner is a first time offender and the incident and genesis of the crime, as is enunciated by the prosecution, has not taken place. Nevertheless, to buy peace, petitioner is prepared to pay enhanced fine amount and seeks to set aside the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 4. Said submission is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader by contending that the petitioner has gone to the extent of threatening the Corporation official, that too, when the Corporation official has sought for production of the license to run the shop by the petitioner. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously 6. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly Sri Jayarama Gowda who is the Corporation Official examined as PW-1 visited the shop of the accused on 25.11.2010 and sought for showing the licence to run the shop. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 7. At that juncture altercation has taken place. The material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to conclude the offence even though minor contradictions are elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 8. The order of conviction is upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record which was discussed in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under: “17. Herein this case P.W.1 Jayaram Gowda is the complainant. In his evidence he is supporting the prosecution side and he deposed that he given complaint to the police as per averment of the complaint and as per Ex.P.1 he filed a complaint before the police and I have gone through the cross-examination of the P.W.1 nothing is elicited from the mouth of the P.W.1. So, the incident alleged by the complainant is proved by the complainant and prosecution. I have perused evidence of the P.W.2 Abdul Gaffar he was eye witness to the incident, he deposed that the accused interfering official duty and abused the complainant and he deposed as per complaint averments. In his cross- examination nothing is elicited by the counsel for the accused to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. So, going through the chief- examination and cross-examination, it is clear that the incident is happened as narrated in the complaint and P.W.3 Devdas is the eye witness to this incident and he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.4 Anil Prabhu is eye witness to this incident and he deposed as per averment of the complaint and in his cross-examination nothing is elicited from the mouth of the complainant. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.5 Parashuram he deposed that he arrested the accused and he produced before the I.O., and during cross-examination nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witness. P.W.6 Rao Ganesh Janardhan is the I.O., and he deposed that he filed a charge sheet before the court and P.W.7 Mehboob Khan deposed that he registered the complaint and he taken a complaint and he filed a FIR. P.W.8 Thaslim Pasha he was a mahazar witness, but he turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.9 Naveen Kumar deposed that he arrested the accused and he further investigated the case and went to the spot along with C.W.5 & 6 and he recorded the statement of the witnesses and during his cross-examination nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses. I have gone through entire evidence placed before the court by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that P.W.1 and 2 are supporting the prosecution and from their evidence it is crystal clear that as per complaint averments accused committed an offence as alleged in the complaint and more over going through the cross- examination of all the witnesses, nothing is elicited by the counsel for the accused. P.W.8 is the panch witness and P.W.6 & 7 are not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and from the prosecution witness it clearly goes to show that the accused abused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 in filthy language and accused had stopped them not to move further. 18. Thereby I hold the question of interfering by this court in the judgment passed by the trial court will not arise. The judgment passed by the trial court is well reasoned and in accordance with the law and facts. Accordingly, I hold point for consideration No.1 in Affirmative and No.2 in Negative and proceed to pass the following:- ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment passed by the Learned XI ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.25165/2011 dated: 06.01.2025 convicting the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 504, 353 of IPC is confirmed. Send back Trial Court Record (TCR) to the Trial Court along with copy of judgment. No order as to costs.” 9. As such, having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 10. Having said so, admittedly accused is a first time offender. Learned Trial Judge was duty bound to consider the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 question of granting probation after recording an order of conviction against the accused. 11. In the order regarding sentence, there is no discussion with regard to extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge in the Trial Court which was not properly considered by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court as there is no discussion at all. 12. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the revision petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, of which a portion can be paid as compensation to PW-1 and set aside the imprisonment by directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court, ends of justice would be met. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19532 CRL.RP No. 513 of 2026 Sections 341, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30th April 2026. (iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount, sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-1 and balance amount shall appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. (iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 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 kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59