Karnataka High Court
Manjegowda S/O Ajjegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
CRL.RP.NO.1144 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
MANJEGOWDA
S/O AJJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O DANTARAMAKKI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DINESH KUMAR K.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.NAMITA MAHESH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND
401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.7.2006 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
C.C.NO.2776 OF 2004 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 31.7.2010 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.75
2
OF- 2006 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES
LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
****
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the prosecution is that on 14-7-1993, the accused and the deceased Puttegowda offered themselves as sureties to the accused Muzahid and Basheer in Crime No.184 of 1993 of Chikkamagaluru Town police station. While offering sureties they created false documents namely, Solvency certificate, patta book etc., in order to convince the Court that they possess properties and that they are solvent. On verification, it was found that they did not possess the said properties, but have mislead the Court. Therefore, the accused have cheated the court by producing false and fabricated documents. The learned JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, filed a complaint before the Town police Chikkamagaluru. It was registered in Crime No.306 of 1995 for the offences punishable under 3 Sections 465, 420, 468, 472, 473 and 474 IPC. The investigation was taken up. A charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 474 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 18 documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. He denied all the circumstances. On hearing, the trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted under Section 474 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years along with payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. The second accused died during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the case abeted against him. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before 4 the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2006, who passed an order on 31-7-2010 dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below committed an error while convicting the accused. That the evidence produced by the prosecution does not establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has created false documents and produced them before the Court. Therefore, he pleads that the Revision petition be allowed by setting aside the order of the trial court and the appellate court.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader, disputes the same. She contends that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and have come to the conclusion that false and 5 fabricated documents were produced before the Court. Hence, she pleads that the Revision Petition be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
5. PW.1 was the village accountant between the period 1993-94. He has stated in his evidence that he has not issued the receipt and patta books to accused 1 and 2. That he has not given them the same. Even the signatures said to have been found on the said books are not his signatures. In the cross-examination he has stated that the books are issued in the name of the Government free of cost. That he has handed over the specimen signatures to the police in Kannada and English. He denied the suggestion that the writings in Exs.P-1 and P-2 are in his own hand writing. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. He has clearly denied his signature on the patta books. 6
6. PW.2 was a clerk working in the Taluk office between 1993-94. He has stated that he does not know the accused. He has been treated as hostile.
7. PW.3 is the Tahasildar, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. He has denied the signature on Exs.P-3 and 4 which are the solvency certificates. He has stated that he has not issued both the Exhibits. That he has not signed on them. That the seals affixed on them do not belong to his office. In the cross-examination, he has stated that for obtaining a solvency certificate, an application has to be filed and then on the report of the Revenue Inspector, the certificate may be issued. He has enquired regarding the application for issuance of Exs.P-3 and P-4. That he does not remember that there was an entry in support of the same. He has categorically denied the suggestion that Exs.P-3 and P-4 are issued by his office and that his signature belongs to him. Exs.P-1 & 2 are the patta books Exs.P-3 & 4 are the solvency certificates. PW.1 has denied the execution of Exs.P-1 and P-2. PW.3 has denied the 7 execution of Exs.P-3 and P-4. Both of them are relevant officers for the concerned Exhibits. When they have not issued it and the signatures do not belong to them and when nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross- examination, the Court below was justified in accepting the evidence. I find no good ground to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court with regard to the fabrication of Exs.P-1 to P-4.
8. PW.11 is the hand writing expert. He has furnished his information with regard to Exs.P-1 to P-4, in terms of his report vide Ex.P-15. The specimen signatures of both the accused were also furnished to him. The relevant extract of Ex.P-15 is as follows:-
"(1) The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signatures stamped and marked R79 to R103 did not write the similarly stamped and marked D1 and D1(A). (2) The specimen rubber stamp impressions marked as R103 to R108 do not tally with the 8 questioned rubber stamp impressions marked as D2 and D2(A).
(3) The specimen rubber stamp impressions marked as R73 to R78 do not tally with the questioned rubber stamp impressions marked as D3 and D3(A).
(4) The specimen rubber stamp impressions marked as R43 to R48 do not tally with the questioned rubber stamp impressions marked as D9 and D16.
(5) It has not been possible to express definite opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned writings and signatures marked as D4 to D8 and D10 to D15, on the basis of available specimens."
He has also given his opinion with respect to the solvency certificates and opined that the admitted and the questioned signatures do not tally with each other. That they are not similar. Exs.D-4 to 8, Exs.D-10 & 15 are the signatures of the accused given to PW.11. He has stated that Exs.D-8 and D-15 show complex involvement of formations, whereas specimen supplied for examination 9 marked as R-25 to R30 are in detached formations of characters, the questioned writings marked as Exs.D-4 to D-7 and D-10 to D-14 are existing in two disputed pattas, they are showing a set pattern of executions of characters and hence no opinion is expressed on the basis of the available specimens. Notwithstanding the same, the opinion of PW.11 as regards Exs.P-3 and P-4 requires to be accepted. Therefore, they being created documents, the prosecution has established its case.
9. The evidence of other witnesses would not be germane for the consideration of the present petition. In view of the categorical evidence of PWs 1,3 & 11 both the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence under section 417 as well as 474 IPC. I do not find any perversity in the reasoning assigned by the Courts below while convicting the accused. The appreciation of evidence is just and in accordance with law. I do not find any ground to interfere with both the Judgment of the courts below. 10
Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties are discharged. The convict shall be taken into custody forthwith. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional JMFC (Junior Division), Chikkamagaluru in C.C.No.2776 of 2004 dated 13-07-2006 and the Judgment and order dated 31-07-2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2006 are confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-