- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.465 OF 2018 BETWEEN: K N ARUN KUMAR S/O K B NARAYANASWAMY R/AT NO.3, 1ST CROSS CHANNAKRISHNA STREET NEAR NEW MASQUE PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE - 560003 (REP. BY LEGAL HEIR) REKHA ARUNKUMAR W/O LATE K N ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: SENIOR MANAGER STORES M/S. RAMAIAH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL R/AT FLAT No.308, 3RD FLOOR E WEST SKYWAY APARTMENTS 1 A CROSS, SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE JAKKUR LAYOUT, BBMP BENGALURU – 560 064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUSHIL D R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DINESH KUMAR K RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI CIRCLE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DIST – 562110 (REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560001) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 20.12.2010 PASSED IN C.C.NOs.12, 13 AND 14/2001 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1/2011 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar K Rao, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original revision petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri K Nageshwarappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 2. Revision petition was filed by Sri. K. N Arun Kumar, who is the first accused in C.C.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2001 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. He has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted for the offences under Sections 406, 408 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by a considered judgment dated 20.12.2010. 3. For the proved offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, both the accused persons were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default sentence of four months imprisonment. 4. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2011 by the revision petitioner. Second accused challenged the said conviction and Sentence in Crl.A.No.3/2011. 5. Both the appeals were heard together and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, by considered judgment dated 04.08.2016, dismissed the appeals filed by the respective accused persons. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, first accused has preferred the present revision petition. 7. During the pendency of the revision petition, revision petitioner died and legal representative is brought on record, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRABAN KUMAR MITRA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1959 SC 144; STATE OF KERALA vs NARAYANI AMMA KAMALA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1962 SC 1530 and also following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMESAN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE GIRIJA A vs STATE OF KERALA reported in (2020) 3 SCC 45. 8. State did not challenge the continuation of the revision petition through legal representative both in respect of payment of fine as well as the validity of the order of conviction passed by the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 9. Thus, it is now the legal representative of accused No.1 who is pursuing this revision petition on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 10. Facts of the case for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 10.1. The original revision petitioner - K N Arun Kumar worked as a Veterinary Doctor in the District Co-operative Milk Producers Society, Devanahalli and he was in charge drawing officer for the period of 1993 to 1995. 10.2. Accused No.2, was the assistant reporting to the Arun Kumar and was maintaining the staff and other necessary details. Arun Kumar being the Veterinary Doctor, by virtue of incharge drawing officer, was entrusted with the assets of the said society as there is an automatic entrustment by virtue of his position. 10.3. For the years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 audit report showed deficiency in the maintenance of the stock of fodder. 10.4. There was no proper explanation by the accused persons and therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction, charge sheet came to be filed by the jurisdictional police for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408 and 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 11. Presence of the accused persons were secured by the learned Trial Magistrate and framed charges. Though the accused persons pleaded not guilty, trial was held. 12. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, proceeded to examine as many as 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and 51 documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51. 13. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidence were culled out and they were put to the accused seeking their explanation to those incriminating circumstances as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 14. The accused has not properly offered his explanation to the incriminatory circumstances while answering question Nos.10, 13, 20 and 58 and denied the other incriminatory circumstances and pleaded ignorance as well. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 15. The aforesaid questions and answers are culled out hereunder for ready reference: ¥Àæ: 10 : ¦qÀ§Æè 1 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁPÀëzÀ°è 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ¥À±ÀÄ OµÀ¢ü zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ¢AzÀ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î ²©gÀPÉÌ ªÀUÀðªÁzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É CzÀÄ ¤¦ 5, 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj¤AzÀ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î ²©gÀPÉÌ ªÀUÀðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ zÁR¯É ¤¦ 6, ZÁ¸Á 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ¦°«Ä£Àj ªÀgÀ¢ £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ¤¦ 7, ZÁ¸Á 5 PÉÆlÖ Crmï ªÀgÀ¢ £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ¤¦ 8 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛÃj? G: ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ¥Àæ: 13 : ¦qÀ§Æè 2 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÁPÀëzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÀ½§âgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è CªÀiÁ£ÀwAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖ qÁ. PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀȵÀÚ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjUÉ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î ²©gÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß Crmï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjPÉÆÃAqɪÀÅ, ZÁ¸Á 6 £ÁUÀgÁdÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ Crmï ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛÃj? G: CªÀiÁ£Àw£À°è EnÖgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, DzÀgÉ Crmï §UÉÎ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¥Àæ: 20 : ¦qÀ§Æè 3 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÁPÀëzÀ°è 1£Éà DgÉÆæ PÀȵÀÚgÉrجÄAzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ 6 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 ZÁeïð°¸ïÖ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤¦ 32 jAzÀ 37 gÀªÀgÉUÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤¦ 12 ¸ÁÖPï ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå 22 gÀ°è CPÉÊgÀÄ zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß 1704 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj JAnæ ¤¦ 12 (J) gÀ°è EzÉ. ¤¦ 13 gÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è zÁ¸ÁÛ£À£ÀÄß 704 ªÀÄÆmÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦ 13 (J) JAzÀÄ, ¤¦ 18 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 19 gÀAvÉ 18.08.1994 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10.08.1994 gÀAzÀÄ ¥À±ÀÄ DºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀzÀ°è EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛÃj? G : PÀȵÀÚgÉrÝAiÀĪÀgÀÄ 1991 gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. ¥Àæ: 58 : ¦qÀ§Æè 21 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.08.1999 gÀAzÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¤jÃPÀëuÁ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, DvÀ¤UÉ zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr eÁ«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©nÖzÉÝãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.01.2000 gÀAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á - 3, 5, 9 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.06.2000 gÀAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á- 13 gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV 4 zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤¦-11 gÀAvÉ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤¦-12, 14, 15, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 gÀ°è EªÉ. CzÉà ¢£À ZÁ¸Á - 4, 2, 8 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉ¼ÀÄwÛÃj? G : ºÁdgÁVzÉÝãÉ, G½zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 16. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 20.12.2010 connected the accused and sentenced as aforesaid. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal which on merits came to be dismissed as referred to supra. 18. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.1/revision petitioner is before this Court. 19. Sri Dinesh Kumar K Rao, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would vehemently contend that accused/revision petitioner - Arun Kumar was only an incharge officer and every other aspects of the matter were dealt by accused No.2 – Siddharamaiah. Therefore, there cannot be any vicarious liability on the Arun Kumar, who did not take part in alleged misappropriation of the assets of the said society. 20. It is also contented on behalf of the petitioner that alleged misappropriation is not established by placing necessary material evidence on record and only on the ground - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 that the revision petitioner was in-charge officer, he cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, especially when the learned Trial Judge has recorded an order of acquittal for the offence under Section 420, 406 and 408 of Indian Penal Code and State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal for the aforesaid offences. 21. It is also contented that mere shortage of the stock or non entry of the number of fodder bags which have been received in the Federation and non entry thereof in the stock would not ipso facto result in the misappropriation of the assets of the Federation so as to attract the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code which has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 22. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the revision grounds would contend that because of the position that the revision petitioner assumed in the year 1993 to 1995, as an in-charge officer of the federation at Devanahalli would result in automatic entrustment of the assets of the federation. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 23. Further, learned High Court Government Pleader would emphasize that admittedly charge list has been accepted by the revision petitioner from Sri Krishna Reddy and at that juncture, the number of the fodder bags as could be seen from the stock register vide Ex.P12 is to the tune of 1704 bags vide Ex.P12 (a). 24. But, while carrying forward the entries in Ex.P13, the entry has been shown as only 704 bags and there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming for the remaining 1,000 fodder bags. 25. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in establishing the fact that there was a misappropriation of the assets of the Federation for which the revision petitioner is solely responsible and he cannot blame the second accused for the shortage of the bags and non entry thereof. 26. Revision petitioner being the in-charge officer of the Federation was not only answerable for the shortage of the fodder, but also for supervision of the assets of the Federation. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 409 of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 Indian Penal Code and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 27. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 28. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration. 1. Whether the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to sustain the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? 3. Whether the sentence is excessive? 4. What order? 29. Regarding point Nos.1 to 3: In the case on hand, revision petitioner - Arun Kumar being the in-charge - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 officer of Federation for the period of 1993 to 1995 is not in dispute. 30. As per the charge list marked at Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.37 would make it clear that the petitioner assumed the charge and took over the assets of the Federation and thus there is an automatic entrustment of all the assets of the Federation. 31. Ex.P.12 is the relevant document which is the stock register to appreciate the rival contention of the parties. There is a specific mention in Ex.P.12 that 1704 of bags of fodder was in the stock as per Ex.P.12(a). However, for the subsequent year, the stock has reduced to 704 in Ex.P.13. No explanation is forthcoming as to the remaining 1000 fodder bags when the entries were carried out from Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.13. 32. Likewise, in Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 dated 18.08.1994 and 10.08.1994, there was a receipt of cattle feed which was not even entered into the stock book. 33. When the said deficiencies were noted at the time of audit, explanation was sought for from the accused No.1/revision petitioner. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming with regard to the deficiency in the stock of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 fodder bags as well as the cattle feed from accused No.1/revision petitioner. 34. Prosecution also successful in establishing that there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.31,917/- in respect of 240 bags of cattle feed which was obtained from the Central Office and not accounted in the Stock Book. For this deficiency also there was no explanation forthcoming from the first accused. 35. For the period from 01.04.1994 to 31.08.1994, 2,679 bags of cattle feed were supplied to the Federation and from the previous 704 bags, there were total 3,383 bags of the cattle feed that was to be there in the stock. Of which, only 2,903 bags there is an accounting between the period of 01.04.1994 to 31.08.1994 and balance 480 bags of the cattle feed were missing. The said deficiency is marked as Ex.P13(d) by the prosecution. 36. On this score also there is no explanation forthcoming from the first accused/revision petitioner - Arun Kumar. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 37. Likewise, deficiencies marked in Ex.P.13(g), Ex.P.13(h) and Ex.P.13(i) are found and there is no explanation whatsoever. 38. Further, prosecution was able to place on record the cattle feed which has been supplied to him has been acknowledged by accused No.2 for and on behalf of accused No.1 on 18.08.1994 vide Ex.P26 and in the said supply, 240 bags of cattle feed was received which is also not accounted for. 39. Further, as per Ex.P19, 200 bags of cattle feed was received and the same is found in page No.261 of Ex.P.26. But, only 200 bags were supplied to Rajanukunte as per the sale register and there was a deficiency of 40 bags. 40. Thus, prosecution was successful in establishing that there was a supply, non receipt, and non entering the same in the sale stock register and deficiency found in the Federation at Devanahalli. 41. These incriminatory circumstances were culled out by the learned Trial Magistrate and put to the accused while recording the accused statement as referred to supra. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 42. Pertinently, there is no satisfactory answer by the accused nor any material evidence is placed on record to show that accused No.1 is not responsible for the alleged offences. 43. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 44. Further, the defence taken by the accused that he was only an in-charge officer and it is the second accused who has actually misappropriated the fodder cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as by virtue of the position held by the accused, there was an automatic entrustment of the assets of Federation and accused No.1 is responsible for the shortage of the stock in the Federation which has been misappropriated by accused No.1 and 2 together. 45. Thus, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, 46. Minor contradictions elicited in the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses did not cause any serious dent in the case of the prosecution and therefore, the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 impugned judgments cannot be held to be suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. 47. Taking note of the above factual aspects which are evident from the documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution is successful in establishing all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction. 48. Sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference as revision petitioner is no more. 49. So far as payment of fine is concerned, since the conviction order is upheld by this Court in this revision petition, the same does not require to be reduced in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. Moreover, State has not preferred any appeal against the charges under Section 420, 406, and 408 of Indian Penal Code nor preferred any revision petition insofar as the inadequacy of the sentence. 50. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15471 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2018 51. In view of foregoing discussion, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the negative. 52. Regarding Point No.4: In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) If the legal representative of the petitioner fail to pay the fine amount, the learned Trial Magistrate is at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law. (iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this Order forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SN/MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66