- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.450 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: A.G. SHIVANNA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SECRETARY, V.S.S.N.BANK, ARENAHALLY, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571107 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP.K.C A/W SMT.PAVANA.B.K, ADVOCATES ) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-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 JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2025 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR IN CRL.A NO.28/2016 AND IN CC NO.440/2004 DATED 31.12.2015 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PERIYAPATNA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 408 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, though the same is listed for hearing on interlocutory application. 3. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.440/2004 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016. 4. Admittedly, revision petitioner was working as Manager in Ravanduru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’), who is said to have misappropriated Rs.13,995/- which was confirmed in internal enquiry and criminal prosecution was launched. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 5. Police after registering the case, after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged in the charge sheet. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused, summoned the accused and framed charges. 7. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 17 witnesses as PWs-1 to 17 and placed on record 46 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to 46. 9. After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances, culled out from the prosecution evidence, but failed to place defence evidence on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 10. In a matter of this nature, documentary evidence would prevail over the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 11. Learned Trial Magistrate on cumulative analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, noted that prosecution is successful in establishing that sum of Rs.13,995/- was not accounted by the petitioner to the accounts of the bank though he had collected the same. Accordingly, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. It was also directed that the bank may recover the misappropriated amount by filing a separate civil proceedings. 12. Order of conviction was subject matter of the challenge before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 14. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 15. At the outset, Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that petitioner is aged 74 years and is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents. Therefore, period of imprisonment ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court may be set- aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 16. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and till today the petitioner has not chosen to deposit sum of Rs.13,995/- which is the misappropriated amount which shows the conduct of the petitioner and therefore no lenience can be shown. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court reconsidered that documentary evidence placed on record are overwhelming in nature in establishing the charges leveled - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 against the accused which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts while recording an order of conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Revision petitioner being the Manager of the bank, was automatically entrusted with the books of account and the assets of the bank. 19. Admittedly there is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner/accused at the time of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the deficient amount of Rs.13,995/-. 20. These factors would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction having regard to limited revision powers. 21. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is now aged 74 years and did not have any criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by directing him to pay into the account of the bank a sum of Rs.13,995/- which is the misappropriated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 amount on or before 10.05.2026 and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, ends of justice would be met. 22. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the petitioner to undergo a day’s imprisonment till rising of the Court and to deposit misappropriated amount of Rs.13,995/- to the Ravanduru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Bank and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10th May 2026. (iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount, sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20527 CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026 to Ravanduru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Bank under due identification. (iv) Balance sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. (v) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- and misappropriated amount of Rs.13,995/-, the sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. In view of the disposal of the revision petition, I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail does not survive for consideration. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77