Karnataka High Court
Aleemuddin @ Aleem Ahmed vs State Through Roza Police Station on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200019 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ALEEMUDDIN @ ALEEM AHMED
S/O IRSHAD AHMED,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. JALAL WADI ROZA NOOR-BAAG ROZA (B),
NOW AT. SAIDABAD,
MADINAPETH MANDI HYDERABAD- 500003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH STATE THROUGH ROZA POLICE STATION,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
REP. BY ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, 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 DATED 15.01.2021 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.71/2019 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.3778/2010
THEREBY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NO.3 APPELLANT HEREIN
AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The petitioner being accused No.3 in C.C.No.3778/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short 'Trial Court') is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2019, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 on the file of the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court') by dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, PW.1 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 3 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR as per Ex.P1, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is contended by the informant that, accused No.3 was the pigmy collector for Sahara India Pariwar for several years and he gained confidence of PW.1 and other investors. When PW.1 had been to Sahara India Pariwar, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 induced him to invest in the business of accused No.1, projecting him as an importer and exporter.
3. During April 2004, accused No.3 came along with accused Nos.1 and 2 to the house of PW.1 and induced him to deposit the amount in the business of accused No.1. Accordingly, PW.1 invested Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.04.2004. On enquiry, accused No.1 informed that he is the resident of Kalaburagi, accused No.3 is his brother-in-law and all the accused have undertaken to pay a lucrative return of Rs.4,000/- per month for the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into. When PW.1 invested Rs.5,00,000/-, accused No.1 had issued five cheques drawn on Punjab National -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR Bank, without mentioning the date. Initially, for 4 to 5 months, the accused have paid the amount promptly. Believing them, PW.1 again deposited further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the accused issued two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda. Subsequently, neither the principal amount nor any returns were paid by accused Nos.1 to 3. Thereby, they have cheated. Accordingly, the first information came to be registered. During investigation, accused No.3 who is the appellant herein was apprehended, accused Nos.1 and 2 were absconding and accordingly final report came to be filed against accused No.3. It is stated that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are still absconding and a split-up charge sheet is filed against them.
4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, registered the criminal case and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 29 and got marked Exs.P1 to P184. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but he has not led any evidence in support of his defence.
5. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced accused No.3 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, confirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner/accused No.3 has preferred this revision petition.
6. Heard Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, learned -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused No.3 along with accused Nos.1 and 2 induced PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29 to invest the money in the so called business of import and export of accused No.1 by promising to give the profit and thereby obtained in all Rs.41,80,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed an agreement for repayment of the money and cheated them -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR thereby committed the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
9. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 17, 27 and 29, who are the investors and all these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is deposed by these witnesses that, accused No.3 was the pigmy collector on behalf of Sahara India Pariwar from 1998 to 2005 and thereby he gained confidence of the investors. Accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.3 and accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2. Taking advantage of the position that accused No.3 being the pigmy collector for over 7 years, and had gained confidence in the mind of the investors, accused Nos.1 to 3 together approached them inducing that accused No.1, is an importer and exporter and if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested they will get Rs.4,000/- as profit per month. Believing the words of accused Nos.1 to 3, all these investors have invested in all Rs.41,80,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have executed an agreement, on demand -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR promissory note and a consent letter. Accused No.1 also issued the cheques to make believe the investors that he is carrying a genuine business. Later, the accused had collected all these cheques.
10. It is the contention of the prosecution that initially for few months, profit of Rs.4,000/- per month for Rs.1,00,000/- each was paid and later neither the principal amount nor the interest was paid and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court on appreciation of all the evidence of the investors, convicted accused No.3 for the aforesaid offence. The First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the materials on record confirmed the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in none of the documents, accused No3 is the signatory. He never executed any demand promissory -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR note nor issued any cheques. Under such circumstances, there is no nexus between the offence in question and the present petitioner. No materials have placed before the Court to substantiate the fact that accused No.3 had accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of collecting the amount. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are still absconding and accused No.3 has appeared before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no offence as alleged could be attributable to the present petitioner. The Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused No.3 without there being any material on record against him. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
12. Even though accused No.3 is not a signatory to any of the documents that are produced before the Court, PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29 being the investors have specifically deposed on oath about the role played by the present petitioner/accused No.3. It is specifically stated that, he was the pigmy collector for Sahara India Pariwar from 1998 till 2005. The investors who are the pigmy
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR depositors had faith in accused No.3. Taking undue advantage of the situation, where the investors believed in accused No.3, he, in collusion with accused No.2 who is his sister and accused No.1 who is his brother-in-law induced the investors to invest the money with accused No.1 projecting him as a businessmen doing import and export. Even though the documents were signed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and none of the documents were signed by accused No.3, it does not mean to say that the petitioner has not committed any cheating. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29, who consistently deposed regarding the cheating committed by accused No.3. The materials on record disclose that, if not for the accused No.3, who had gained confidence of the investors as a pigmy collector over a period of 7 years, the investors would not have paid the amount to accused No.1.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since accused No.3 is not a signatory to any
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR of the agreement produced by the prosecution, he cannot be held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, cannot be accepted. It is not a civil suit for recovery of money against accused No.3, to contend that he is not a signatory to the agreement and therefore he is not liable to pay the money. It is the criminal proceeding alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, where all the investors consistently deposed about the role played by petitioner/accused No.3. Hence, there are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve their version.
14. It is pertinent to note that, during cross- examination of PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29, there is denial by accused No.3 that he had not approached the investors and they had not paid the amount to accused No.3. All these suggestions were denied by the witnesses to contend that money by the investors was collected by accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.3 has not stepped into the witness box to depose about his defence. Under such
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419 CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021 HC-KAR circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable for conviction.
15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have consistently considered the materials on record and have arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:PK