Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath on 13 September, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100029 OF 2017
(397)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
AND:
MANJUNATH VIRUPAXAPPA KYALKONDA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
R/O: KUD QUARTERS, E-54, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K M SHIRALLI.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY
THE APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.32/2016 AND TRIAL COURT IN
C.C.NO.550/2006 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE IN
CRL.APL.NO.32/2016 DATED 29.07.2016 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for records and to examine records and to set aside the judgment and order passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.A.No.32/2016 dated 29.07.2016 and in CC No.550/2006 dated 07.09.2015 passed by the trial Court and to convict the respondent/accused for the charged offences.
2. In this revision petition, State is questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Dharwad in 550/2006 dated 07.09.2015 which was confirmed by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.A.No.3/2016 dated 29.07.2016.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are: in the complaint of Sri.Muralidhar S.Krishnamurthy was a Head Master. Accused was working -3- CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017 as Second Division Assistant in Karnataka University Public School, Dharwad. The school had a P.D. Account bearing No.01000060222 in S.B.I.Dharwad for the purpose of transaction of money pertaining to school fee, Hostel fee and other expenses. During that time, accused was custodian of the cheque book issued by SBI containing 100 leaves bearing No.672201 to 672300 and will be always in steel cupboard. Accused will always use to handle the cheque book for money transaction of the school and he was suspended by the complainant on 07.05.2009 for misappropriation of money.
4. It is further contended that in the complaint that, on 20.07.2005, a student was willing to pay the hostel fee, the complainant deputed one S.B.Kalal to turn out the office work in place of accused. The said S.B.Kalal brought to the notice of the complainant that cheque bearing Nos.672223, 672224 and 672225 are missing from the cheque book, thereafter, himself and S.B. Kalal rushed to -4- CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017 SBI Main branch Dharwad, verified about the very cheques, then came to know that, cheque No.672223 was encashed for Rs.50,000/- on 29.06.2005. Thereafter, on 21.07.2005, they met Branch Manager, and came to know that, said cheque bearing No.672223 for Rs.50,000/- was encashed in the name of one B.M.Savanur, who was nowhere concerned to the school.
5. It is further contended that the complainant came to know that two seals were put in English and Kannada in the name and style as "The Principle, Public University School, Dharwad," and "Karnataka Vishwavidyalaya Madyamika Shale, Dharwad" and on both the side, there were two signatures as good his signatures, in fact the very signatures were not put by him. That on 22.07.2005, he wrote a request letter to Chief Manager of the SBI, with request to supply the Xerox copy of encahsed cheque bearing No.672223 and also for not to encash other two cheques bearing Nos.672224, 672225 if they are submitted for encashment. In this regard on 22.07.2005, -5- CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017 lodged written complaint before the Vice-Chancellor, Karnataka University, Dharwad and in turn on 23.07.2005 Vice Chancellor instructed to lodge a complaint under his letter bearing No.DPAR/NT/2005/690. Accordingly, he lodged complaint to the Police Sub-Inspect, Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad on 28.07.2005 along with copy of cheque No.672223 for Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of said complaint, Police Sub-Inspector has registered crime No.170/2005 against accused for the offences punishable under Section 406, 465, 468, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and sent FIR to this Court. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the alleged offence and case was registered in CC No.549/2006. Charges were framed for the alleged offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and got marked 19 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the -6- CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017 statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has denied the evidence appearing against him and three witnesses were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and 14 documents were got marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14. On hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused as per the judgment dated 07.09.2015. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, State has preferred the Crl.A.No.32/2016 before IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad and the appeal also came to be dismissed on 29.07.2016. Hence, the State has preferred this revision petition.
7. The learned HCGP Sri.Praveen K.Uppar has submitted his arguments that both the Courts have erred in law in acquitting the accused. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove its case. On these grounds, learned HCGP sought for allow the revision petition.
-7-CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgments, absolutely there are no grounds to allow this revision petition.
9. I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses with documentary evidence and also the defence evidence with Ex.D.1 to D.14. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner and passed the impugned judgments.
10. It is well settled principles of law, and requires no emphasis that the accused is presumed to be innocent till the charges leveled against the accused stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, it is equally settled proposition of law that recording of an order of acquittal by -8- CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017 a competent court after full fledged trial strengthens such innocence of the accused as is held by in the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1953) SCR 418 (Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab) and (1963) 2 SCR 405, (M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra).
11. It is brought to my notice that the State has preferred Criminal Revision Petition against some respondents in Crl.RP.No.100142/2019 which pertains to the similar transaction, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed this Criminal Revision Petition on 07.09.2020.
12. In the case on hand, in view of acquittal order recorded by learned Magistrate which was confirmed by the first appellate court, this court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by both the courts. Prosecution is unable to point out any serious legal infirmity or perversity in reaching the finding of acquittal by both the courts.
-9-CRL.RP No. 100029 of 2017
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed.
14. Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this Order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1