Karnataka High Court
Rangaswamy @ Thimma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.223 OF 2010
BETWEEN
RANGASWAMY @ THIMMA
S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A NAGAVALLI
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: JAGADEESHA B N, ADV., )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
------
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.8.07 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-V,
TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.138/2006 AND THE ORDER DATED
25.10.06 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. (SR.DN.) & CJM., TUMKUR
IN C.C.NO.918/2001.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
In this criminal revision petition under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused is challenging order of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC dated 25.10.2006 in C.C.No.918/2001 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumkur, which has been affirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.138/2006.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to this petition as under:-
While the complainant had parked his Maruti van in his residential compound near Srinivas Nursing Home, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur., a pioneer company Tape recorder fitted to the Maruthi Van bearing registration No.KA-06- 1586 was stolen by unknown person during night hours. When the accused was apprehended on 15.12.2000, based on his voluntary statement, the tape recorder belonging to 3 Abid Ahmed-PW-2, it was seized from PW-1 Naveen after 5 months. On enquiry with PW-1, he told that he purchased the same from accused for Rs.500/-. A complaint was lodged before N.E.P.S police station, Tumkur, Tape recorder was seized under pancha and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. During the course of investigation, tape recorder was recovered from the possession of PW-1 Naveen, who inturn has stated that he purchased the same from the accused for Rs.500/-. The same was seized under a panchanama and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, in order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and marked Ex-P1 to P4, apart from M.O-1 Tape recorder. The learned Magistrate upon hearing both the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record by his order dated 25.10.2006 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple 4 imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused challenged his conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.138/2006 on the file of Fast Track Court-V, Tumkur. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, while confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 379 of IPC, modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year, by his judgment dated 24.8.2007.
Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred.
Heard the arguments. Perused the records.
3. As I have already stated, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses as PWs-1 to 6. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 is the person to whom the accused had sold the tape recorder-M.O.1. He has spoken in his evidence that the accused sold M.O.-1 5 Tape recorder to him for Rs.500/-. When the accused was brought after arrest and showed to PW-1, he has identified the accused as the same person who sold tape recorder M.O.1 to him for Rs.300/-. A suggestion made to him that in order to help the complainant, he has given false complaint, has been denied. After recovery, tape recorder was shown to PW-2 Abid Ahamed, who identified that it is his tape recorder fitted to his Maruthi Van. PW-4 Adil Pasha is the panch witness. During the course of his cross- examination, he has stated that the police visited the spot and he has put his signature at Ex-P3. PW-5 -Mohammed Amir-Investigation Officer has stated that on 15.12.2001, when PSI- Ramachandrappa alongwith other police constables brought one person by showing that he is the person who has stolen the tape recorder and when the person was enquired, he has stated that he was selling a taper recorder stolen by him. The evidence of PW-5 would further go to show that the accused was produced before him and on enquiry, he disclosed regarding theft of tape recorder fitted to various vehicles including the vehicle in question belonging to PW-1. PW-5 recorded the statement 6 of the accused. After his arrest, presence of PW-1 was secured in the police station. Thus prosecution has proved the recovery of the tape recorder from possession of PW-1, which was sold to him by the accused. Thus the learned Magistrate upon proper appreciation of the evidence has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge though confirmed the conviction has reduced the sentence from three years to one year. It has not been challenged by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegalities or irregularities committed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any ground so as to call for my interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-