- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.9 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI V N MANJUNATH S/O V K NAGENDRA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O VARTHAKONDLU ARALAGODU VILLAGE BARANGI HOBLI -577421 SAGAR TALUK &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH H, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY SAGAR RURAL POLICE SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 3 560 001 &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 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR IN C.C.NO.149/2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.10025/2017. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash H, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an Order of Conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, in C.C.No.149/2011 dated 01.08.2017. <Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default for payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and the sentence of fine shall run consecutively. Out of the aforesaid fine amount of Rs.40,000/- a sum of Rs.35,000/- shall be given to the PW-1 by name Sri Ramadevadiga, S/o Dasappa, as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds executed by the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled. That the period of detention undergone by the accused from 20.02.2008 to 04.03.2008 in total for 13 days shall be given set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed on him.= - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 3. The Order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the accused before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.10025/2017. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment dated 06.10.2017. 5. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision. 6. At the outset, Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the material evidence on record is not properly appreciated by both the Courts and therefore, Order of Conviction is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, he would contend that taking note of the age of the accused who is already a deaf person, Court may show lenience by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and setting aside the imprisonment. 8. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and supports - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 9. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 9.1 Revision petitioner was working as a Branch Post Master at Avinahalli Post Office, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District between 16.04.2002 to 05.04.2003. 9.2 Being the Post Master, revision petitioner was automatically entrusted with the assets of the Post Office, Avinahalli Branch. 9.3 Admittedly, there is misappropriation of Rs.40,000/- in the annual accounts, inasmuch as, Rs.40,000/- was altered as Rs.400/- by manipulating the registers of the Post Office which came to light during the course of inspection and there was no proper explanation offered by the revision petitioner/accused in that regard. 9.4 Therefore, the complaint was lodged after obtaining necessary sanctions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 10. The police registered the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences on receipt of the charge sheet. The charges were framed for the aforesaid offences by the learned Trial Magistrate. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine eleven witnesses as PWs-1 to PW-11 and placed on record 23 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-23 comprising of passbook, statement, specimen signature of PW-1, letter written by the government examiner of questioned documents, opinion of the government examiner of questioned documents, application for opening an account of PW-1, Pay in slip, request letter given by the accused, leave letters, charge reports, statements of P.W.7 and P.W.9, seizure mahazar, First - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 Information Statement, appointment letter, Statement of P.W.3, Sanction order, First Information Report, certified copy of order passed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Shivamogga, to lodge complaint against accused and certified copy of the suspension order of the accused. 13. As against the material placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW-1 by contending that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has not misappropriated the amount of the Post Office of Avinahalli branch and sought for acquittal. 14. In support of his contentions, accused placed on record seven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D-1 to D-7 comprising of receipt, book, certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S No.276/2010, certified copy of the decree passed in O.S No.276/2010, certified copy of the complaint given by PW-1 to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru, certified copy of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of N.G.Basanakatti of complaint No.155/2008 and the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 P.W-1 of complaint No.155/2008 and certified copy of the judgment passed in complaint No.155/2008. 15. Learned Trial Magistrate, on conclusion of recording of evidence of both sides, recorded accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances. 16. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him as referred to supra. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has approached the First Appellate Court wherein also, appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 06.10.2017. 18. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 19. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that the accused was working as Post Master of Avinahalli Post Office, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District from 16.04.2002 to 05.04.2003. 20. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that CW-2 and CW-3 being the husband and wife visited Avinahalli Post Office and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- in Time Deposit for a period of one year in the name of CW-2. 21. However, accused with an intention to cheat them, failed to account for the sum of Rs.40,000/- and opened a Time Deposit account in the name of CW-2 and made an entry in the passbook as Rs.400/- instead of Rs.40,000/- and sent the same to the Head Post Office at Sagar. 22. After receipt of the passbook from the head Post Office accused altered Rs.400/- as Rs.40,000/-. CW-2 and CW-3 believed that they had deposited Rs.40,000/-, whereas, the Time Deposit was opened only in a sum of Rs.400/-. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 23. These aspects of the matter has been established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record especially Exhibit P-1 which is the passbook. 24. The signature of the accused was disputed and therefore questioned signature was referred to the Government handwriting expert who has given the report stating that the signature found in the past book regarding the alteration is that of the accused. 25. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, charge sheet allegations stood proved for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as there is an alteration of the documents maintained by the Post Office for the benefit of the accused and there is misappropriation of Rs.39,600/- by the accused and accounted only Rs.400/- to the Post Office, though amount received from CW-2 and CW-3 was Rs.40,000/-. 26. In a matter of this nature, more than the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is the probative value of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 documents that would prevail in establishing the guilt of accused. 27. In the case on hand, since the documents make it clear that Rs.40,000/- is shown in the passbook of CW-2 and only Rs.400/- has been sent to Head Post Office and Time Deposit is opened only for Rs.400/- accused is bound to account for the remaining amount and there is no satisfactory explanation which resulted in suspension of the accused from the Postmastership and thereafter, there was no proper reply or explanation offered by the accused and he has been removed from service. 28. The civil proceedings initiated by the depositors before the Consumer Forum and Order passed therein would not have any serious impact on the criminal proceedings as the degree of proof required for the civil proceedings before the consumer forum is 8preponderance of possibilities9 and the degree of proof that is required for the criminal court is 8beyond reasonable doubt9. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 29. In the case on hand, misappropriation of Rs.39,600/- by the accused has been established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record which has been properly appreciated by both the Courts and therefore, this Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction does not find any one good ground to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 30. As such, conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences is hereby confirmed. 31. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument put forward on behalf of the accused viz., lenience to be shown to the accused as he has lost the job of the Postmaster and he is now aged 59 years and he is already suffering from deafness. 32. Taking note of the above facts and the fact that the accused was in custody for a period 26 days, if the same is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offences by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, of which reasonable amount can be paid as compensation to the CW-2, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 ends of justice would be met with in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 33. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby modified by directing the custody period of 26 days already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable in two equal installments, one on 28.04.2026 and the other on 29.05.2026. (iii) After receipt of the fine amount, entire enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18202 CRL.RP No. 9 of 2018 be paid as compensation to CW-2 under due identification and, if CW-2 is not alive, to his dependents under due identification. (iv) It is made clear that failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as aforesaid, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. Office to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order, for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65