- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.88 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI.D.V.RAMARAO S/O LATE D VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKANAHALLI, YELLAPURA POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 102 &PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALLAMBELLA POLICE STATION TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 125 &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 DATED 28.12.2017 PASSED BY HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2016 PASSED IN C.C.No.202/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, AND ALSO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL CHARGES. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.202/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.06/2016, which came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 28.12.2017. Operative portion of the order of sentence reads as under: <The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable U/sec.409 of IPC. Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.= - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under. 4. In respect of the misappropriation of the funds of Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 8Bank9), Kallambella Police, based on the complaint lodged by the official of the bank registered a crime. After thorough investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial Magistrate and charge was framed for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. Since accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, sixteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and as many as thirty six documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 8. Accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put to him which is culled out from the prosecution evidence. 9. Thereafter learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties noted the fact that accused was working as a secretary of the bank and there was automatic entrustment of the assets of the bank in him and between the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, there was shortage of the funds in the accounts of the bank for which there was no proper explanation offered by the accused and thus convicted the accused for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as referred to supra. 10. Accused having been aggrieved with the finding of the guilt and order of sentence, approached the First Appellate Court by filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.06/2016. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of sentence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 13. Sri Harish N.R. learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the learned Trial Magistrate as well as the learned judge in the First Appellate Court grossly erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code inasmuch as accused was not solely responsible for the alleged shortage of the funds between the period of 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 and he has been made as the scapegoat for the alleged misappropriation and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the misappropriated amount is Rs.5,65,256-99/-. Receipts produced for having paid misappropriated amount is Rs.5,65,160/-, less amount of Rs.96/- which accused is ready to pay. 15. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, this Court may consider the age of the accused as 75 years, by enhancing the fine amount - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 reasonably the sentence may be set aside as accused has repaid the entire misappropriated amount. ***** 16. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment. 17. He would specifically contend that the stock received by the bank has been accounted, but it has not been accounted by taking into the stock register and the intention in not taking into the stock register is very clear as the stocks were sold which was not accounted in the books of the bank. 18. Further, contended that the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses that there was a delay in sending the food items and the kerosene oil to the bank and therefore, the stock book was not updated properly is incorrect and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. Insofar as the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner is concerned, Sri K. Nageshwarappa would content that age is not only the criteria to reduce the imprisonment of two years inasmuch as when the incident has taken place in the year 2003, the accused was hale and healthy and therefore, no lenience can be shown to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 20. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, accused being the Secretary of the Bank is not in dispute. By virtue of the position held by the accused, there was automatic entrustment of the stock and books of account of the bank in accused. 22. The supply of food items and the kerosene oil from time to time is reflected by placing necessary material evidence on record, but after the sale of the food items and the kerosene oil, there is shortage of the cash between the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 which has been pointed out by P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses. 23. P.W.3 is the complainant and P.W.1 is the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Madhugiri Sub-Division. When the discrepancies and the misappropriation is brought to the notice of P.W.1, necessary instructions were given and explanation was also sought for by exercising the power under Section 68 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, by a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 written communication dated 07.01.2004 by P.W.1 to the accused. 24. But, there was no proper explanation offered and stocks which were received in the bank was not accounted by the petitioner herein. 25. In a matter of this nature, oral evidence is limited as the misappropriation is established by the prosecution based on the documentary evidence. 26. As such, the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner that he is totally innocent of the offence alleged against him cannot be countenanced in law as there was no explanation offered by the accused to the notice issued by P.W.1 and the deficit in the stock register was attributable to the petitioner herein. 27. Thus, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 28. This would take this Court to the next limb of argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that accused being aged 75 years, may be shown leniency and set - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 aside the imprisonment period by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 29. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner having lost the job, is now dependent on his children to maintain his livelihood and also to pay the fine amount. Misappropriated amount is repaid by the children of the accused. Less Rs.96/- which the accused has undertaken to pay. 30. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and accused being the first time offender and having regard to his age of 75 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the Court by setting aside two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and directed to pay sum Rs.75,000/- in two instalments, ends of justice would be met. 31. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, sentence of two years imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the Court by paying an enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- payable in two instalments and first instalment on or before 28.04.2026 in a sum of Rs.50,000 and second instalment on or before 28.05.2026 in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. (iii) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank Limited at Chikkanahalli, Sira Taluk, under due identification. (iv) Balance amount of Rs.15,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18217 CRL.RP No. 88 of 2018 (v) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as mentioned supra, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (vi) 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 MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89