Karnataka High Court
Manohara Guruappa Gadag vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494
CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 768 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 769 OF 2015
IN CRL.RP. NO.768/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. MANOHARA GURUAPPA GADAG
S/O. GURAPPA GADAG,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT. RABINAL VILLAGE,
BASAVANABAGEVADI TALUK,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586203.
2. SHARANAPPA SANGAPPA BUDGOLI
S/O. SANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT. RABINAL VILLAGE,
BASAVANABAGEVADI TALUK,
Digitally
signed by BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586203.
MALATESH ...PETITIONERS
KC (BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
DODDAPETE POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494
CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.05.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN
CRL.A.NO.248/2012 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
11.12.2012 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-II COURT, SHIMOGA IN
C.C.NO.1739/2010 AND MAY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM
THE CHARGE OF 468, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.RP. NO.769/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. BAHUBALI MADAPPA NYAMEGOWDA
S/O. MADAPPA NYAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT. SANALE VILLAGE,
ALAGURU POST,
JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT-587301.
2. DHAREPPA MADAPPA
S/O. MADAPPA NYAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT SANALA VILLAGE,
ALAGURU POST,
JAMAKANDI TALUK,
BAGALAKOT DISTRICT-587301.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
DODDAPETE POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494
CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04.05.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA IN
CRL.A.NO.247/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
11.12.2012 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-II COURT, SHIMOGA IN
C.C.NO.1738/2010 AND MAY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM
THE CHARGE OF 468, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Prasad Hegde K.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State in both the petitions.
2. The revision petitioners in both these petitions had suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). All the revision petitioners have been ordered to undergo rigoruous imprisonment for a period of three years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the aforesaid offences. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.Nos.1738/2010 and 1739/2010 by the learned JMFC II, Shimoga was confirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.A.Nos.247/2012 and 248/2012 respectively.
4. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of these petitions are as under:
5. The applications for the post of Civil Police Constable and Women Police Constable were invited under the Government of Karnataka notification bearing No.29/appointment/2008-2009 dated 20.06.2008. The prospective applicants were required to submit O.M.R application form by subscribing their signature as well as left thumb impression in the prescribed slot in the application form. The allegations against the revision petitioners is that they have impersonated and they have filed a wrong application.
6. Police after conducting thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the revisions petitioners. The O.M.R applications were sent to the experts and found that the signature and thumb impression of the revision petitioners did -5- NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015 not tally with the name of the applicant in the application and therefore, charge sheet came to be filed. Charges were framed after securing the presence of the revision petitioners by the learned Trial Magistrate. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held.
7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined necessary witnesses and placed on record the documentary evidence, which were the O.M.R application, answer paper and such other relevant material to establish the impersonation. Detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive materials so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, in as much as, the impersonation and the incorrect information furnished in the O.M.R application was proved by documentary application.
8. The statement of accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein the accused persons failed to offer any explanation whatsoever.
9. Thereafter, the Trial Magistrate heard the parties and convicted the accused in both the cases and sentenced them as referred to supra.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners had filed appeals in Crl.A.No.247/2012 and 248/2012 in respect of C.C.No.1738/2010 and 1739/2010.
11. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and verifying the material documents, re- appreciated the material evidence in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum concurred with the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate and upheld the conviction and sentence. Thereafter the petitioners are before this Court.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that this is only a human error and to save the time and money, the brother of the applicant has gone to Shivamogga and has subscribed their signature while submitting the application and this is utmost an act which is not an act of a prudent and there was no criminality involved in filing such applications and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petitioner.
13. Alternatively Sri Prasad Hedge, learned counsel also contended that the revision petitioners are not having any -7- NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015 criminal antecedents. In the absence of any criminal antecedents taking note of the fact that the revision petitioners are now middle aged, having a family to maintain, the custody period already undergone by the petitioners may be treated as period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
14. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the revision grounds in toto including the alternative submission on behalf of the revision petitioners.
15. Having heard the parties in detail this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, as could be seen from the material evidence placed on record, especially the O.M.R sheets and the answer scripts, the specimen signature and specimen left thumb impression of the original applicants and that of the revision petitioners, the ingredients required to attract the offences under Sections 420 and 468 stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Therefore, on merits of the matter, this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction does not find any good ground to interfere with the order of conviction. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015
17. Having said thus, it is seen that the revision petitioners have been convicted for the aforesaid offences and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for both the offences and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
18. Taking note of the fact that the incident has occurred, when the petitioners were young and thereafter there is no report against the revision petitioners about the misconduct or mischief or any criminal acts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody period already undergone by them if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount, in a sum of Rs.75,000/- inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences would meet the ends of justice.
19. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) The order of conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC stands confirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment ordered by the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:28494 CRL.RP No. 768 of 2015 C/W CRL.RP No. 769 of 2015 Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the aforesaid offences for a period of thee years is hereby modified as under:
(a) The custody period already undergone by the revision petitioners is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- which is inclusive of fine amount ordered by the Trial Magistrate before the Trial Court.
(b) The fine amount of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid
by the accused persons on or before
30.09.2024, failing which the sentence
imposed trial Court stands restored
automatically. Office is directed to send trial Court records forthwith along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8