- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.512 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1216 OF 2018 IN CRL.RP No.512/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI S NAGENDRA S/O SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, COOLIE,RESIDING AT: Y.S. GUNDAPPA EXTENSION, RAJEEVA NAGARA, BENGALURU ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. BHEEMANAIAK S/O DODDA BHEEMANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, RESIDING AT SINGANAHALLI, DODDA THANDA, ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SOMASHEKARA.K.M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 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 JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 08.10.2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.931/2013 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.64/2015 AND THE PETITIONER MAY BE ACQUITTED. IN CRL.RP NO. 1216/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. SHASHIDHARA MOHAN ALAGAWADI S/O SRI MOHANA ALAGAWADI, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KURUVINAKOPPA VILLAGE JAKANOOR POST VIA BADAMI RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT-582 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.10.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.No.931/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.No.66/2015 AND THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465,466,471 AND 420 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned Senior Advocate for Smt.Deepa L.Kallimani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P No.1216/2018, Sri K.M.Somashekara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.RP No.512/2018 and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Petitioners in Crl.RP No.512/2018 are accused 1 and 4, petitioner in Crl.RP No.1216/2018 is the accused No.3 who have suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 under Sections 465, 466, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga, in C.C.No.931/2013 dated 08.10.2015. 3. The appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crl.A.No.64/2015 and accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.66/2015 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, came to be allowed in part, by the judgment dated 31.03.2018, modifying the sentence. 4. Gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioners with fake marks card had applied for the post of peon in District Court, Chithradurga. On verification, the marks cards that were enclosed along with the application were found to be fake marks cards. 5. The prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record resulting in conviction of the accused persons. 6. The order of conviction was challenged by accused Nos.1, 4 and 3 before the District Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 31.03.2018 allowed the appeals in part inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.26 to 28 as under: 26. On perusal of the records it reveals that accused No.1 Nagendra produced Ex.P.4 marks card before the District Court, Chitradurga along with Ex.P.3 application for the post of peon on 24.7.2008 alleging that he obtained 445 marks in 7th Standard during the year 1991-92, but as per the report of D.D.P.I. Kolar, B.E.O. Srinivasapura, Dist: Kolar, accused No.1 Nagendra never taken 7th Standard Examination at Primary school, Gownipalli, Tq: Srirampura. He obtained fake marks card, writing his name as Nagendra in the place of G.V. Manjunataha at Sl.No.1648, which can be easily seen in Ex.P.6 Register maintained by the Head Master, primary school. It seems that accused No.1 Nagendra has produced fake/forged marks card before the District Court, Chitradurga colluding with the concerned Head Master. In fact, accused No.5 Ramaiah, who issued fake marks card, reported as dead. 27. Further on perusal of Ex.P.8, P.9 records, it reveals that accused No.2 Kumara obtained marks card from the Head Master, Sri Nandishwara Higher Primary school, Nandigudi, Tq: Harihar, applied for the post of peon, showing his marks as 597, but in Ex.P.30 copy of the register it reveals that the concerned school head - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 master manipulated the records posted the relevant portion of the slip showing different marks of the candidate and issued Ex.P.9 marks card on 14.7.2007. Even there is no records to show that accused No.2 Kumara obtained lesser marks. It seems that there is a fraud on the part of the School head master of Sri Nandishwara Higher Primary school, Nandigudi, Tq: Harihar, but accused No.2 is not entitled to take benefit of said entry, as it is forged one. 28. Further on perusal of Ex.P.12 application, Ex.P.13 marks card it reveals that accused No.3 Shashidhar Mohan Alagawadi applied for the post of peon on 27.4.2008, produced Ex.P.13(a) forged marks card by forging the signature of Head Master of Sri Kalmeshwara Composite P.U. College, Hole Alur. The said entries are not tallying in the school register maintained by the Head Master. As per the school register accused No.3 Shashidhara Mohan Alagawadi obtained 229 marks against 600. It seems that there is no fault with the Head Master of Sri Kalmeshwara Composite P.U. College, Hole Alur, but there is a fault with the accused No.3 Shashidhar Mohan Alagawadi, that can be seen in Ex.P.14 report of B.E.O., Ex.P.15 report of D.D.P.I. Gadag. In this behalf, the trial court has rightly appreciated the documents produced by the prosecution and rightly convicted accused No.1, 3, 4.” 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court in these revision petitions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the revision petitioners did not get the job of peon by virtue of placing the fake marks cards along with the application. 11. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to obtain the post of peon based on fake marks cards itself was sufficient enough to conclude the offence. 12. Even though learned Senior Counsel Sri C.R.Gopalswamy vehemently contented that offence under 466 cannot be attracted in the factual circumstance of the case, material on record is sufficient enough to conclude the conviction order as the scope of revision petition is very limited and there is a concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts. 13. Having said thus, the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioners needs consideration inasmuch as accused persons were in custody for a period of two months when the trial was in progress. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 14. Learned Senior counsel would request the Court to consider the same as period of imprisonment for the proved offences by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 15. Said submission is also seriously opposed by learned High Court Government Pleader by contending that, if persons like petitioners are shown leniency, there is every possibility of repetition of such offences by similarly placed perpetrators of crime and also sends a wrong message to the society and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petitions. 16. Having noticed the fact that the incident has occurred long back and the prosecution itself was in the year 2013, at this distance of time when the petitioners are settled in life with their families, eking out their livelihood by doing the coolie work, sending them to the prison would not only result in great hardship to the accused persons, but also to their dependents i.e., the wife and children. 17. Taking note of the fact that the accused persons were in custody for a period of two months, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by each of the revision - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 petitioners on or before 31st March 2026 would meet the ends of justice in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. More so, when the revision petitioners are unable to now apply for any government job having regard to their age. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petitions allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the custody period already undergone by the them is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each payable by the revision petitioners on or before 31st March 2026. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, modified by the First Appellate Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13957 CRL.RP No. 512 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1216 of 2018 (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53