Karnataka High Court
Shakil Saheblal Shaikh @ Kalawant vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765
CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100222 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHAKIL SAHEBLAL SHAIKH @ KALAWANT,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRANAV BADAGI, ADVOCATE,
SRI S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
Digitally
signed by
DHARWAD.
VN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
(PERFORMING TO NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION,
2025.03.28
10:41:31
+0530
BAGALKOTE)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2017 PASSED BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOTE, IN
CRL.A. NO. 89 OF 2013 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2017 PASSED BY
THE C.J.M BAGALKOTE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 457, 380 AND 511 OF IPC IN C.C.NO. 41 OF
2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765
CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017
THIS 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.Pranav Badagi, advocate for Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Accused to suffer an order of conviction in CC No.41/2012 confirmed in Crl.A.No.89/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 R/W 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences, is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under:
3.1 It is complaint that in Navanagar Sector No.35, Bagalkote on 02.05.2012 at about 2.00 a.m. accused -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017 trespassed into ATM of Syndicate Bank with an intention to commit theft. After entering the cabin of ATM, accused tried to remove the screws of ATM with the help of the machine and tried to thieve away the cash stored in the ATM.
3.2 Based on receipt of the complaint, investigation agency visited the place of incident and seized the CCTV footage and then on examination of the CCTV footage, noticed that, it is the accused who was indulged in breaking open the door of the ATM and removed the screws with the help of a machine.
3.3 Accused was arrested and investigation got completed and charge sheet is filed. After due trial, the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.4 Validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was questioned before the First appellate Court in Crl.A.No.89/2013.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017 3.5 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parities and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court.
5. Sri.Pranav Badagi, counsel on behalf of the accused reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contend that electronic evidence is not placed on record by the investigation agency and in the absence of proper identification of the accused, without the electronic evidence on record conviction of the revision petitioner is termed as illegal as panch witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
6. Learned counsel would further contend that material on record would not warrant sustaining the order of conviction and sentence and sought for allowing the revision petition.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed on record the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Versus State of Punjab1.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments.
9. He would further contend that very arrest of accused has taken place based on the CCTV footage and no normal prudent person would meddle with the ATM machine, if he has gone inside the cabin where he ATM is kept.
10. The CCTV footage would clearly indicate that with the help of a machine accused has broke open the door of the ATM and he is in the process of removing the screws, but he failed to thieve the money and no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused as to the CCTV footage and just sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
1 2022 Live Law (SC) 461 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017
11. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, even though, there is no compliance of Section 65(B), presence of the accused in the ATM is established and no explanation is forthcoming.
13. Taking note of the fact that he has tried to meddle with the ATM machine with the help of machine and was found removing the screws, it should be inferred that accused was trying to thieve away the money stored in the ATM. Further, since he had visited the cabin where ATM is kept with an intention to thieve the money, his presence is termed as trespassing into the cabin where the ATM is kept and he could not be termed as a normal prudent person.
14. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, taking note of the fact that there is no money thieved, if a conviction is maintained by enhancing the sum of -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4765 CRL.RP No. 100222 of 2017 Rs.5,000/- for the aforesaid offences (Rs.10,000+5,000= 15,000/-), ends of justice would be met.
15. Hence, following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 457 and 380 R/W Section 511 IPC, simple imprisonment ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.15,000/-(10,000+5,000) payable on before 15.04.2025.
(iii) Failing which accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB/CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22