- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 228 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. PARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE PREMANNA, R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM, WARD No.12, HUNSUR TOWN-571 105, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2. MR. SHIVA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/o. LATE NINGARAJU, R/AT No. 73, 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, MYSORE TOWN-570 007. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIDYASAGAR H.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR P1; [SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, AMICUS CURIAE FOR PETITIONER, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.10.2025]) AND: KARNATAKA STATE REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.160/2014 FROM THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2014 PASSED IN C.C.No.97/2009 BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR AND TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 394 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Vidyasagar H.V., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kemparaju, counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have been convicted in C.C.No.97/2009, confirmed in Crl.A.No.160/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Petitioners have been sentenced as under before the trial Magistrate: “Accused No.1 & 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence u/s 394 if IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default, they shall - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months each. The interim custody of M.Os.No.1 & 2 are made absolute.” 4. As of now, petitioners are in custody since 01.04.2026 as they failed to appear before the Court and address the arguments. 5. At the outset, Sri Vidyasagar would submit that Court may show lenience by directing the custody period already undergone by the petitioners as period of imprisonment for the proved offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 6. He would further submit that both the petitioners have got family to maintain and the incident has occurred when they were young in age and they are now responsible family persons and there are no criminal antecedents and they are the first time offenders. 7. Per contra, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that though incident is of the year 2009, the same was dragged on upto 2014 for one reason or the other and thereafter matter was pending before the First Appellate Court from 2014 to 2017 and before this Court the petitioners have not shown any interest in prosecuting the revision petition properly after obtaining the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 interim order of suspension of sentence and it is by virtue of the Non-bailable warrant issued by this Court, their presence have been secured and therefore, no mercy can be shown. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, seized material objects marked at MO1 and MO2 namely, black coloured Nokia mobile Telephone handset and Titex chain watch would complete the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code and as much as petitioners are not the owners of the seized material objects and admittedly, they have been snatched away from the complainant and the victim. 10. Recovery of the material objects under seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P3 would amply establish the action attributable to the revision petitioner. 11. Further, wound certificate marked at Ex.P4 makes it clear that use of force by the accused persons while snatching MO1 and MO2. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court need to be upheld having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction. 12. However, the petitioners are admittedly first time offenders and they were taken to custody before this Court by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 executing the non-bailable warrant as they failed to prosecute the revision which was filed in the year 2018. 13. Taking note of the period spent by them in the custody and also taking note of the fact that they are first time offenders and family persons having family to maintain, if the said custody period is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and portion of which can be paid as compensation to PW1 would meet the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, custody period already undergone by the petitioners is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each payable on or before 10.05.2026. (iii) Soon after the payment of the fine amount, there shall be an intimation to the Central Prison, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21584 CRL.RP No. 228 of 2018 Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru for issue of release order. (iv) After the receipt of the fine amount, sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1 under due identification. (v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. (vi) Relist this matter on 24.04.2026 for compliance. (vii) Operative portion of the order shall be communicated to the learned Trial Magistrate forthwith by e-mail. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 73