- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100186 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O RAMAPPA DODDAMANI AGE- 25 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE, R/O- HIREMATTUR, TQ- HIREKERUR, NOW R/AT- ISLAMPUR ONI, BYADGI, DIST- HAVERI-581115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI OF BYADGI POLICE STATION, THROUGH ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 11/03/2020 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.37/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT RANEBENNUR OFFENCE U/S 380 OF IPC 6 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 15/03/2019 IN CC NO.416/2014 PASSED BY THE JMFC, BYADGI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 380 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.03 15:09:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.416/ 2014 on the file of the JMFC, Byadagi, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.37/2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code is the revision petitioner. 3. The Trial Court sentenced the accused as under: “DgÉÆæ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 380 CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV 1 ªÀµÀð ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀzÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ 2 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. zÀAqÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¢zÀÝ°è 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ²PÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.” 4. Facts of the case in a nutshell for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020 In respect of the theft committed in the house of the complainant by the accused, who is none other than the tenant of the complainant, a complaint came to be lodged with the Haveri Police. 5. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. There was recovery of stolen articles i.e., two gold chains from the custody of the accused. Trial ended in conviction of the accused. 6. The defence that was taken before the Trial Court, before the First Appellate Court and before this Court by the accused is that he was tenant and in order to evict him from the premises, a false case has been foisted against him. 7. Such a defence was not probabilised by placing necessary material evidence, as the recovery of the golden chains was the pivotal point on which the conviction came to be recorded. 8. In order to evict the accused, why would the police and the complainant would implant two golden chains in the custody of the accused and show it as a recovery, is a question that remains unanswered. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020 9. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the matter, order of conviction recorded against the revision petitioner cannot be interfered, that too in the revisional jurisdiction, having regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012)9 SCC 460. Accordingly, conviction order is to be maintained. 10. Having taken note of the fact that the conviction order is to be maintained since the accused is a first time offender and he is now settled comfortably in life and he has also vacated the premises which was in occupation of the complainant, the Trial Court ought to have granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act which has not been taken note of by the First Appellate Court. Thus, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1287 CRL.RP No. 100186 of 2020 (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment is set aside by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.20,000/- payable on or before 28th February 2026. (iii) Office is directed to return Trial Court Records with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. (iv) It is made clear that if the enhanced fine amount is not paid on or before 28th February 2026, order of sentence passed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm CT:CMU/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30