- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI GURUSIDDAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA JEEVANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583232 TQ. YALABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADUR POLICE STATION, HAVERI, NOW BY SPP, HIGH COURT , DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.A NO. 103/2018 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HANGAL IN C.C.NO. 395/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 AND 120(b), R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioner is accused No.2 who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.395/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one years for the offence under Section 465 of IPC, two years for the offence under Section 466 of IPC, two years for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, two years for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and two years for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 120B. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned I Additional 1 For short, ‘IPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 District and Sessions Judge, Haveri2 in Criminal Appeal No.103/2018. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 04.02.2023. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court in this revision on following grounds:  “The impugned Judgments and Orders of Conviction passed by both the Courts are illegal, capricious and not sustainable in the eye of Law in as much as same are contrary to the material facts and evidence on record. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.  The Hon'ble Trial Court grievously erred in passing the impugned Judgment and Order of Conviction by placing much reliance on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-35 and the evidence of P.W.1 and 27. The Hon'ble Court ought to have noted that the Respondent/Complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all 2 For short, ‘First Appellate Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 reasonable doubts and failed to prove involvement of Petitioner/ Accused No.2. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction / sentence passed Hon'ble Trial Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Lower Appellate Court are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.  That both the courts ought to have noted that the very contentions of the petitioner that he was applied for job and believing government officials petitioner joined for said job hence there was lapse on the part of other accused and they committed said offence but not this petitioner this said contention was not at all appreciated by the both the courts. Hence on this count alone the impugned judgment and order of conviction / sentence by passed by both the courts are liable to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court.  It is to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, both the courts have failed to properly appreciate that the petitioner has seriously disputed with respect to his involvement in creation of documents as alleged by the prosecution and his involvement in the alleged offence. Hence, the impugned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 Judgment of Conviction & Order of Sentence passed by the both the Courts are bad in Law and same deserve interference of this Hon'ble Court.  It is to be noted that PW-18 and 19 are Panch Witness who entirely turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and prosecution has failed to prove entire case beyond reasonable doubt Hence on his count also both the courts ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.  It is to be noted that, there was not material or documents to show that this petitioner created or fabricated any of the said documents and department to escape from it fault and liability shifted everything on petitioner and made him scapegoat and the same was believed by both the Courts.  That both the Courts while passing the impugned Judgment and Order of Conviction have failed to appreciate that, witness examined by prosecution leads to too many contradictions, omissions, improvements and no corroboration with each other, On this count also the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by both the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 courts are not sustainable and as such same are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.  It is to be noted that the, PW-11 brother of petitioner herein himself adduced that, at various point of time they gave money to get job for petitioner and they arranged said money from obtaining loan from bank and paid to Accused No.3 but both the courts not drawn correct interference and failed to appreciate the same by passing the said judgments.  It is further submitted that, the entire case of prosecution which is conspiracy created by the government officials and the petitioner was made as scapegoat and when they understood their passion they shifted entire things on petitioner and made him liable and the same was believed by both the courts mechanically and passed impugned orders to which interference of this Hon'ble Court us warranted.  The Hon'ble Lower Appellate Court grievously erred in mechanically confirming impugned Judgment and Order of Conviction passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is now aged about 52 years and a family person and the incident has occurred inadvertently in the year 2002 and therefore, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, custody already undergone by the petitioner may be treated as period of imprisonment and allow the revision in part. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the grounds urged in the petition in toto. 9. He would further contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature and petitioner in active collusion with accused No.1 created - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 official records, so as to prepare a list of thirteen persons who are not even teachers as duly appointed teachers for availing the inter-division transfer. Therefore, no mercy can be shown to the petitioner. 10. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that people like revision petitioner shall not be shown any mercy as he went to the extent of creating a false document and showing lenience would encourage similarly placed perpetrators of crime. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution successfully established all ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity or call for interference? 3. Whether a sentence is excessive? 4. What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. In the case on hand, admittedly the revision petitioner is not a duly appointed teacher. However, with the active collusion with accused No.1, he concocted documents at the government level to get his inter-division transfer. When the same came into light, the revision petitioner and other accused were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. 14. Material on record clearly disclosed that the revision petitioner was not appointed as a teacher by the government and based on the fake documents, the transfer list was sought to be prepared. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 15. The case of the prosecution rests predominantly on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence which are more in the corroborative nature. 16. Pertinently, the prosecution witnesses did not possess any previous enmity or animosity as against the accused persons. The collection of documents by the Investigation Agency is inthe proper course of investigation and they depicted that petitioner was not a teacher so as to avail the benefit of the inter-division transfer. 17. All these factors when viewed cumulatively it is crystal clear that the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have been established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 18. The material evidence has been rightly appreciated by learned Trial Magistrate and re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative. Regarding Point No.3: 20. The revision petitioner is now aged about 52 years. He lost his job as a teacher which was based on the fake certificate and he has eked out his livelihood by discharging his work as a teacher in a private college. 21. Taking note of the fact that incident has occurred in the year 2002 and there are no complaints against the petitioner thereafter and he is a first time offender, the custody period already undergone by him between 09.08.2005 and 03.09.2005, it treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ends of justice would be met. 22. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the affirmative. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 Regarding Point No.4: 23. The finding of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, custody already undergone by him between 09.08.2005 and 03.09.2005 is stated as of imprisonment for all the offences by directing the revision petitioner/accused No.2 to pay the enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 10.02.2026. (iii) If there is a failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, then the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:794 CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023 imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22