Karnataka High Court
Suresh S Janthi vs State By Cubbon Park Police on 23 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165
CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1428 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SURESH S JANTHI,
SON OF SHANKARAPPA LONI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B.K. VILLAGE,
BARADOLA POST, INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CUBBON PARK POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
signed by BENGALURU - 560 001.
MALATESH
KC ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.1406/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 02.07.2018 PASSED BY THE VIII
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.32174/2010 AND ACQUIT
THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420,
471 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165
CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.G.M.Anand, learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.32174/2010 dated 02.07.2018 on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1406/2018 dated 01.03.2021 on the file of LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-59) whereby, the accused is held to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 419, 420 and 471 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021 one year for each of the offences and ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the offences.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. By a notification dated 20.06.2008, Government of Karnataka called to fill up 1,110 Civil Police Constable posts and Women Police Constable posts in the Police Department.
3.2. The revision petitioner said to have filed an application on 19.07.2008 for the post of Civil Police Constable in the Police Commissioner Office situated in Infantry Road and he has pasted his photograph on the application and the thumb impression subscribed on the said application is that of some other person with an intention to cheat the appointing authority.
3.3. Thereafter, on comparison with the OMR sheet and the application form, the fraud played by the accused -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021 got revealed and necessary complaint was lodged. Matter was thoroughly investigated and a charge sheet came to be filed against the revision petitioner.
4. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, the trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and relied on eleven documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11 comprising of complaint as Ex.P.1, OMR application as Ex.P.2, result sheet of physical standard test as Ex.P.3, result sheet of physical efficiency test as Ex.P.4, fingerprint search slip as Exs.P.5 and 6, FIR as Ex.P.7, OMR answer sheet as Ex.P.8, request letter as Ex.P.9, certificate as Ex.P.10, verification of finger print of candidates who have applied for Civil Police Constable post in Bangalore as Ex.P.11.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
6. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive result in favour of the accused so as to disbelieve the charges leveled against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put to him and did not chose to offer any explanation in writing as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor placed any defence evidence on record.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and noticed that case of the prosecution stands established based primarily on the documentary evidence especially, the finger print expert report, the photograph that has been found on the application, the OMR sheet and efficiency test and recorded an order of conviction against the accused and sentenced him as referred to supra.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
9. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1406/2018.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, not only concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate in holding that accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences but also supplemented additional reasons and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 01.03.2021.
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision.
12. Sri.G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and answers obtained in the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses is totally ignored -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021 by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition.
13. Alternatively, Sri.G.M.Anand, learned counsel for contended that in the event, this Court, upholding the conviction of the accused, taking note of the fact that accused is now aged about forty years and he is now serving as a teacher in a private school and having two children to maintain, may consider the imposition of the fine alone by setting aside the simple imprisonment and sought for allowing the revision petition.
14. Per contra, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgments and submits that in the matter of this nature, if any mercy is shown to the accused, same would send a wrong message to the society and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
15. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the documentary evidence placed on record, coupled with the oral evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that the thumb impression found on the application, the OMR sheet and efficiency test slip were not tallying. Therefore, report of the finger print expert was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate in recording the order of conviction.
17. In the matter of this nature, it is the documentary evidence which will prevail over the oral testimony of the witnesses. Only with regard to the custody of the documents and report thereof, the prosecution witnesses are examined and their cross- examination did not yield any positive material for the accused to establish that thumb impression found on the application form is that of the accused. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021
18. Admittedly, no explanation is forthcoming as to what made the accused to get the thumb impression subscribed on the application form of the accused.
19. Under such circumstances, recording guilt of the accused by both the Courts does not require any interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
20. Having said thus, the mitigating circumstances that has been pleaded by the accused is that he is now aged about forty years and having two children to maintain and he is working as a teacher in a private school; therefore, at this distance of time, if he is to undergo imprisonment, his entire family would be left in lurch and therefore, sought for setting aside the imprisonment period by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
21. Taking note of the fact that there are no criminal antecedents of the revision petitioner and it is an
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021 isolated incident that has taken place in the life of the revision petitioner and he is now working as a teacher, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of this Court and imposing the fine amount of Rs.75,000/- inclusive of the fine amount already imposed by this Trial Court would meet the ends of justice.
22. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of IPC, the imprisonment of one year for each of the sentences is hereby modified and accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of this Court and to pay
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29165 CRL.RP No. 1428 of 2021 fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- in respect of the aforesaid offences inclusive of the fine amount already imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate.
iii. Time is granted to pay the balance fine amount till 30.09.2024 failing which order of conviction and sentence modified by this Court stands vacated and order of learned Trial Magistrate stands restored.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK