- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 977 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 978 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 979 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 980 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No. 1248/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOKA S/O DUGGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT ACCHARDI VILLAGE, HANBAL HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MUDIGERE POLICE STATION, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.74/2016. IN CRL.RP No. 977/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOKA S/O LATE DUGGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER & BUSINESS R/AT ACHARADI VILLAGE HANBAL HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY GONIBEEDU POLICE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.782/2015 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 411 OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.193/2017 AND ALLOWED THE REVISION PETITION BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE ABOVE CASE. IN CRL.RP NO. 978/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. IN CRL.RP NO. 978/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOKA S/O LATE DUGGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER & BUSINESS R/AT ACHARADI VILLAGE, HANBAL HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY GONIBEEDU POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2017, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE IN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS C.C.NO.783/2015, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 411 OF IPC. IN CRL.RP NO. 979/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOKA S/O LATE DUGGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER & BUSINESS R/AT ACHARADI VILLAGE HANBAL HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY GONIBEEDU POLICE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2017, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.784/2015, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 411 OF IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS IN CRL.RP NO. 980/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOKA S/O LATE DUGGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER & BUSINESS R/AT ACHARADI VILLAGE HANBAL HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY GONIBEEDU POLICE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25.11.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE IN C.C.NO.824/2015 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 411 OF CR.P.C. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri.Leeladhar H. P., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. In all these matters, accused No.2 is the revision petitioner. 3. The criminal case number, appeal filed by the revision petitioner, punishment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, fine amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate and the revision petition number are tabulated hereunder for ready reference: Criminal Case Number Criminal Appeal Number Punishment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate Fine amount ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate Revision Petition Number 74/2016 55/2019 Three years imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 1248/2022 782/2015 193/2017 Three years imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 977/2018 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS 783/2015 194/2017 Three years imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 978/2018 784/2015 195/2017 Three years imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 979/2018 824/2015 196/2017 Three years imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 980/2018 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that petitioner being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish the fact that petitioner with full knowledge received the stolen property which was subject matter of the theft and such evidence is not forthcoming on record and as such, mere handling of the property which was subject matter of the theft by the revision petitioner cannot be a ground to convict the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Alternately, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the accused is a first time offender and in respect of all the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS cases, he received the stolen property which was subject matter of different cases, Court may enhance the fine amount and set aside the imprisonment. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent opposes the revision grounds. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, in all these cases, the property which was subject matter of the theft has been recovered from the present revision petitioner under the panchanama. 9. How revision petitioner came to the possession of the property and what are the precautions he has taken before receiving the stolen property from the main accused is a matter that has to be established by the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law in reversing the order of conviction. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS 10. Accordingly, the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that he was a bonafide receiver of the property which was subject matter of the theft cannot be countenanced in law. As such, conviction order is upheld in view of the limited powers under the revisional jurisdiction wherein this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter. 11. This would take this Court to the next submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner namely leniency to be shown. 12. Admittedly, in all these cases, the allegations against the revision petitioner are that he received the property which was subject matter of the theft. 13. All the properties are recovered based on the voluntary statement given by the main accused. Therefore, present revision petitioner is to be treated as first time offender though he is convicted in five cases. 14. Since petitioner is the first time offender and at the time of receiving the property, he might not be having the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS knowledge that the property received is stolen property, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- if the sentence of three years is set aside, ends of justice would be met. 15. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petitions are allowed. ii. In all these cases, modification of the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court of three years imprisonment is set aside by directing the revision petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.35,000/-) on or before 10.05.2026. iii. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, order of the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court imposing - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20857 CRL.RP No. 1248 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 977 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 978 of 2018 AND 2 OTHERS imprisonment three years and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- stands restored automatically. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25