Karnataka High Court
M B Narayanagowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19968
CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1185 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
M B NARAYANAGOWDA
S/o LATE BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC:FDA, MUDA, MYSORE
HOUSE NO.39/B
KANIYARA RAMAMANDIRA ROAD
N R MOHALLA
MYSORE-570 004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION
Digitally MYSORE -570004
signed by REPRESENTED BY
MALATESH
KC STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH BANGALORE-560001
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn) AND C.J.M., MYSORE IN
C.C.NO.700/2003 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED II
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19968
CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A.NO.54/2017
DATED 10.10.2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 409, 467, 468, 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND TO
ACQUIT HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Chandrashekara K.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.700/2003 and sentenced as under
which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.54/2017:
"Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-.
Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence -3- NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR punishable under Section 468 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-.
Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and to sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-
All sentences run concurrently".
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
4. Petitioner has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 408, 418, 423, 467, 468, 471, 477(a) and 420 of Indian Penal Code by Lakshmipuram Police Station, Mysuru.
5. Facts would further reveal that petitioner was working as a First Division Assistant in Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'MUDA'). He has collected the money for and on behalf of the MUDA, but failed to deposit the same to MUDA and misused the same for his personal use. Therefore, enquiry was held and he was found to be guilty. As such, criminal action was initiated. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. Later on, he has repaid the amount that was due to the MUDA and as such, it is a case of temporary misappropriation.
7. On receipt of the complaint police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held.
8. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited as many as forty documents as Exs.P.1 to P.40.
9. In a matter of this nature, more than the oral evidence, it is the documentary evidence which would establish the guilt against the accused.
10. Admittedly, petitioner has not accounted the money which has been collected for and on behalf of MUDA as could be seen from the material documents placed on record, especially Exs.P9 and P10 which is the copy of the site allotment letters and Ex.P11 being the transfer certificate, Ex.P12 is the yet another site allotment letter and the allottee is having paid the money, accused mis-utilised the same for his personal use and did not deposit the same into the MUDA, which ultimately resulted in discrepancy and enquiry was held and accused was -5- NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR found to be guilty. There were signatures which were disputed by the accused.
11. Therefore, the disputed handwriting sheets and sample handwriting sheets of accused at Exs.P.28 to 39 were also sent to the handwriting expert which have been confirmed by the report marked at Ex.P18.
12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced as referred to supra.
13. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the material evidence on record in the appeal filed by the accused, dismissed the appeal holding in para No. 17 to 23 which reads as under:
17. Thus, I do not find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has not proved the entrustment of money by the PW.4 and PW.6 to the accused. True from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.12 it is proved that accused was not officially authorized to receive the amount. That fact instead of coming to the assistance of the accused would corroborate the version of prosecution. When accused was not authorized to receive the amount and yet he ventures to receive the amount from PW.6 and PW.9 then it only proves that he has misappropriated the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR amount. He was entrusted with the amount by PW.4 and PW.6 looking to his official position as concerned clerk.
18. According to the prosecution after receiving the amount from PW.4 and PW.6 the accused fabricated documents. (According to the prosecution even accused has fabricated documents with respect to PW.9. Since with reference to that instance the accused is acquitted it is not discussed). Ex.P9 and P14 are the documents forged with respect to site No.4186 of PW.6. Ex.P11 and P12 are the documents forged with respect to site No.3 of PW.4. (Pages marked at Ex.P10 and P12 are part of same folio). At the cost of repetition I observe that the handwriting in these documents as that of the accused is proved. In Ex.P14 the accused has mentioned that under challan No.3787 on 30.1.2001 amount Rs.68,772/- is credited. In Ex.P9 on 30.3.2002 amount of Rs.68,000/-
is said to be credited. Above it there is a mention about crediting Rs.68,772/- and the entries adjacent to it is scored off. If as per Ex.P14 under challan No.3787 entire amount had been paid by PW.6 on 30.1.2001 itself then there was no occasion for the accused to mention in Ex.P9 about remitting of amount on 30.3.2002. The reply of accused at Ex.P16 and remitting the amount paid by PW.6 in part on 28.3.2002 by himself proves entry in Ex.P14 regarding challan No.3787 as false. In addition to it there is evidence of PW.11 to the effect that under challan No.3787 no amount is credited to the account of MUDA maintained by the bank. The report of PW.11 who is the manager of Vijaya Bank is marked at Ex.P20. Similarly PW.11 has deposed that under challan -7- NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR No.33392 there is no credit of amount of Rs.48,000/- to the account of MUDA in the name of G.Basavaraju on 25.1.2002. The relevant report given by him is marked at Ex.P21. Despite it if the accused mentions challan number in Ex.P11 and makes an entry in Ex.P12 then such act is nothing but making of false entries. There is nothing on record to show that as entered in those documents the accused has remitted the amount to the account of MUDA. Thus, it amounts to making false entries in those documents which amount to fabricating the documents. The challan No.33392 and 3787 are thus fictitious numbers. When those challan numbers are fictitious the question of existence of those challan as a fact do not arise. Thus, there was no occasion to the Investigating Officer to collect the said challans. If the said challan existed then it would not have been the case of the fabrication.
19. Thus, from the above evidence the facts that accused was entrusted in his capacity as servant of MUDA with Rs.48,000/- by PW.4 and Rs.70,000/- by PW.6 stands proved. It also stands proved that he misappropriated the said amount and fabricated false entries in the register of MUDA and issued false certificate marked at Ex.P9, P14, P11 and P12. In view of finding of facts thus arrived I would address the other points raised by learned counsel for the appellant in his written arguments.
20. The term entrustment employed in section 405 of IPC is sought to be interpreted as being entrusted -8- NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR officially by the employer. Such restrictive meaning to the word entrustment used in section 405 of IPC cannot be given. In this case the accused was concerned clerk regarding handling of documents pertaining to allotment of site. How he has won the trust is explained by PW.4, which was only to beguile him. In trust that money paid by them would be deposited by accused to the account of MUDA such amount is paid by PW.4, PW.6 and of course even by PW.9. Instead of depositing the said amount to the account of MUDA the accused has misappropriated the amount to himself. Hence, the submission that MUDA has not entrusted the accused to collect the amount is of no avail to the accused.
21. It is submitted that the very fact that accused has deposited the amount pursuant to show cause notice proves that accused had no dishonest intention. In this regard it is argued that no wrongful loss is caused to the MUDA. This is fallacious submission. But for issuance of show cause notice the accused would not have come forward to pay the amount paid by PW.6. He has not yet paid the amount received by him from PW.4. The word dishonest intention is define at section 24 of IPC. The word wrongful gain used in section 24 of IPC is not focused by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the period of entrustment retention of said money by the accused is nothing but wrongful gain to himself and consequently wrongful loss to the MUDA till its credit. Hence, there was dishonest intention on the part of the accused in misappropriating the money entrusted to him. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
22. In sections 408 and 409 of IPC the term temporary misappropriation is not used. That only means that the offence of criminal breach of trust stands committed from the very moment of violating the directions or mode in which the trust is to be discharged or in violation of any legal contract expressed or implied. In this case since with respect to PW.6 after issuance of show cause notice the accused has remitted the amount the term temporary misappropriation appears to have been used before the lower Court. However that will not take away the acts of the accused from the purview of ingredients of section 405 r/w 409 of IPC. Thus, the said acts of accused amount to offence punishable under section 409 of IPC.
23. No doubt PW.10 has identified his signature on Ex.P12 which is marked at Ex.P12(a) that will not mitigate the other facts fabricated by the accused. In Ex.P12 the portion marked as QD3 is the fabricated part. PW.10 has put his signature in approval in ignorance of challan being fabricated. Since such entry appears to have been certified by the manager D.Kantharaju he appears to have put his signature at Ex.P12(a). Thus, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the signature of PW.10 in Ex.P12 is devoid of merits. According to the prosecution it is the portion marked as QD3 is the fabricated part."
14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused filed the present revision petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
15. Sri Chandrashekara K.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the non-accounting of the money was sufficiently explained by the accused and it was not a case of misappropriation at all and at any rate, offence under Section 409 does not get attracted, in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case as there was no entrustment of the assets of the MUDA in the accused as he was working as only a First Division Assistant.
16. Thus, at the most it can be a case of a temporary appropriation of the amount and which has been repaid by the accused to the MUDA and therefore element of intention of cheating the MUDA was not found and as such, revision petition needs to be allowed.
17. Alternatively, Sri Chandrashekara K.A., would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is now aged 67 years and a family to maintain, by directing the custody period of 28 days already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
18. Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds including the alternate submission made on behalf of the accused by contending that it is a clear case of misappropriation though temporary and therefore all the ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the accused has been established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
19. He would further contend that if any leniency shown to the people like accused, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime get encouraged and it sends a wrong message to the society and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
20. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
21. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a First Division Assistant in MUDA.
22. Admittedly, the cash accounts pertaining to site allotment were deposited by the prospective allottees and the same has to be accounted into the account of MUDA. But the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR same has been misappropriated by the accused. On revelation of the above factual aspect, accused no doubt repaid the amount that was payable to the MUDA.
23. Thus, element of the misappropriation though temporary is established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
24. Defence taken by the accused that the signatures and the handwriting that is found in the records of the MUDA is not his signature.
25. Therefore, those signatures were sent to the handwriting expert and expert has examined the sample handwriting and the disputed handwriting and has furnished a clear opinion that the disputed handwriting is also that of the accused.
26. Hence, all the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused has been established by the prosecution before the learned Trial Magistrate which resulted in conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
27. This Court being the revisional Court having limited jurisdictional jurisdiction does not find any good grounds to interfere with the well reasoned orders of the learned Trial Magistrate by revisiting to the factual aspects of the matter which is impermissible.
28. Thus, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
29. Having said thus, the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner needs to be considered as this Court is required to find out whether sentence is excessive in a given case.
30. In the case on hand, mitigating circumstances that has been placed on record is the age of the accused who is now aged about 67 years. He has got a family to maintain. Moreover, the misappropriated amount is deposited by the accused long back.
31. Taking note of the fact that he has spent 28 days in the custody, if the accused is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and custody period already undergone
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR by him is treated as period of imprisonment ends of justice would be met.
32. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 409, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as to the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment for the proved offences and the accused is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be payable in two installments one on 05.05.2026 and another on 05.06.2026.
(iii) After receipt of the enhanced fine amount, sum of Rs.80,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the MUDA.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19968 CRL.RP No. 1185 of 2018 HC-KAR
(iv) Balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State.
(v) In the event of failure to pay the enhanced payment as directed by this Court, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
(vi) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 69