Karnataka High Court
Lingraj S/O Gundayya Saazi vs The State on 16 June, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200015 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
C/W.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200078 OF 2020
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200025 OF 2021
IN CRL. RP NO. 200015/2021:
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O GUNDURAO KULKARNI,
Digitally signed AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK,
by RENUKA R/O BRAHMPUR,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALBURAGI BENCH-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 19.10.2020 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.84/2018,
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.4300/2011
BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471,
420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BY THE RESPONDENT BRAHMPUR
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI.
----------
IN CRL. RP NO. 200078/2020:
LINGRAJ S/O GUNDAYYA SAAZI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MANIKESHWARI COLONY, BRAHMPUR,
KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401
OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, DATED
29TH NOVEMBER, 2018 AND CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.83/2018 BY JUDGMENT DATED 19TH OCTOBER, 2020.
---------
IN CRL. RP NO. 200025/2021:
RAMABAI W/O SHIVAKUMAR GAYAKWAD,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
DIST. KALABURAGI-07.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.4300/2011 DATED 29.11.2018,
CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.86/2018 DATED 19.10.2020
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
HER THEREIN.
THESE PETITIONS 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)
1. Heard Smt. Hema L. K., Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, H.C.G.P., for the respondent- State.
2. These three revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.5, 1 and 3, respectively in C.C.No.4300/2011 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi.
3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the above revision petitions are as under:
Upon the charge-sheet filed by Brampur Police, in respect of Crime No.157/2010 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR Section 34 of IPC, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and after due trial, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 for the offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 468 and six months for the offence under Section 465 and 471 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- each to the aforesaid offences with default sentence.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.84/2018, 83/2018 and 86/2018, respectively.
5. The learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeals filed by the revision petitioners and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners namely accused Nos.5, 1 and 3 have preferred these revision petitions before this Court.
7. Accused No.2 Kamalabai who is an appellant in Criminal Appeal No.86/2018 has not preferred any revision petition, till today.
8. Accused No.4 said to have died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, case against the accused No.4 came to be abated before the trial Court.
9. Smt. Hema L.K., Sri Avinash A. Uploankar and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioners in chorus contend before this Court that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences resulting in miscarriage of justice.
10. They would further contend that since the learned trial Judge has acquitted the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC., in the absence of any wrongful loss or -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR wrongful gain proved by the prosecution, conviction of the revision petitioners for the remaining offences would be ipso facto illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Alternatively, they would contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court, since all the revision petitioners are first time offenders, they are entitle for grant of probation or in the alternative the custody period already undergone by them treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent.
12. Smt. Hema L.K., would contend that accused No.5 had benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, only enhanced fine may be imposed.
13. Per contra, Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, learned HCGP, not only supported the impugned Judgments, but also contends that, the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 can independently stand even in the absence of offence under Section 420 IPC and therefore, conviction of -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petitioners.
14. He further contended that, when both the Courts based on the material evidence have appreciated the material facts in a judicious manner, this Court, having regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdictional cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter and upset the findings recorded by both the Courts based on findings and reasonings and thus, the revision petitions are to be dismissed.
15. Insofar as the alternative submission is concerned, Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil would contend that, by virtue of the action attributable to the accused persons, huge loss has been occurred to the complainant and therefore, the question of showing any lenience of mercy to the revision petitioners would not arise and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petitions.
16. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR
17. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC ?
(ii) Whether the revision petitioners establish that the impugned Judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference in this revision petitions?
(iii) Whether the sentence is excessive?
(iv) What order?
18. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2:
18.1. In the case on hand, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution proceeded to examine six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and placed on record 180 documents.
18.2. Among the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 is a panch witness to Ex.P.133 - Seizure Panchanama. He has not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are the material witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed in line with the examination-in- chief of P.W.6. P.W.6 deposed before the Court that accused persons were in process of selling the fake caste certificate and he came to know through a credible information when he was working as a Police Inspector in Bramhapur Police Station.
18.3 Accordingly, he proceeded to the spot on 26.06.2010 at about 2.50 p.m. along with his sub-staff and caught hold of accused Nos.1 and 2 who were in the process of selling fake caste certificate and from their custody he seized material documents as well as the seal.
18.4 He also deposed about accused No.2 used to forge the signature of Tahasildar and used to affix the round seal on such certificate. It is the specific case of P.W.6 that as many as 54 caste certificates and income certificates were seized from the custody of accused No.2, and nine
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR silver colour stamps from the custody of accused No.3. Accused No.1 took the head of Raid Party to a photocopy shop situated down side of the Gampa building whereunder, the investigation agency was able to locate a laptop, printer and packets containing silver color stamps and a sum of Rs.4,700/- collected from the public vide papers and such other incriminating materials and drafted Ex.P.133 seizure panchanama.
18.5 Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial Judge appreciated the material evidence and recorded a categorical finding that P.W.6 being the Police Inspector of Brampura Police Station, did not nurture any previous enmity of animosity against the accused persons to foist a false case and case of the prosecution mainly depended on the documentary evidence rather than the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses and merely on the ground that P.W.1 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as there was explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the revision petitioners at the time of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR recording the accused statement and rightly convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
18.6 However, the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish that there was a wrongful loss caused to the Government and wrongful gain to the revision petitioners and other accused persons, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
18.7 It is pertinent to note that the State did not challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioners and other accused person for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and therefore, it became final insofar as the State is concerned.
18.8 It is revision petitioners and second accused - Kamalabai who filed the appeals as aforesaid before the District Court.
18.9 Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments in detail and on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR re-appreciation of the material evidence especially in the light of the ingredients required to be established by the prosecution and critically analyzed the material evidence on record and has recorded a categorical finding that revision petitioners are guilty of the aforesaid offences, not only appreciating the reasons assigned by the learned trial Magistrate but also supplemented additional reasons for confirming the order of conviction and sentence.
18.10. This Court having regard to the limited powers vested in it under the revisional jurisdiction, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, reconsidered reasons assigned by both the Courts while connecting the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences and is convinced that there is no patent factual error nor error of jurisdiction exercised by the trial Judge as well as by the learned Judge of the first appellate Court, the conviction order recorded by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court needs no interference
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR in this revision petition. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively.
19. Regarding Point No.3:
19.1. Admittedly, the revision petitioners are the first time offenders. The offences for which the conviction has been recorded by the trial Magistrate, the trial Judge ought to have considered for grant of probation by calling necessary report from the Probation Officer.
19.2 It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that role of a Judge while recording an order of conviction is all together different from role of Judge who is required to pass appropriate sentence in a given case.
19.3. Consideration of grant of probation is mandatory duty of a Judge who convicts an accused who is the first time offender.
19.4. In the case on hand, since such a course has not been adopted by the learned trial Judge, this Court can definitely reconsider the stand taken by the revision
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR petitioners with regard to showing leniency or granting probation.
19.5 Unfortunately, the learned Judge in the first appellate Court also did not bestow its attention in this regard. Calling for the report from the probation Officer at this distance of time, would only result in futile exercise.
19.6. The incident is of the year 2010. Further, the accused No.4 is already died and therefore, the case against the accused No.4 is abated. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are ladies.
19.7 Therefore, for the proved offence, if the custody period already undergone if treated as a period of imprisonment and they are directed to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, by the revision petitioners and remaining portion of the sentence if set aside, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in partly-affirmative.
20. The petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.200015/2021 namely - Gundu Rao Kulkarni, had the benefit of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR anticipatory bail and therefore, no custody period has been spent by him.
21. Taking note of the fact the petitioner is the only bread earner who had lost his father and has a age old mother to lookafter; directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court and to pay Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
22. Regarding Point No.4.
22.1. In view of the finding of this Court on point No.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER IN CRL.R.P. NO.200015/2021
(i) The revision petition is allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (50,000 + 6,000 =
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR Rs.56,000/-) for the proved offences on or before 15.07.2025.
(ii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount by the revision petitioner, the order of the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first Appellate Court stands restored automatically.
ORDER IN CRL.R.P. Nos.200078/2020 & 200025/2021
(i) The revision petitions are allowed in part, while maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the revision petitioners is treated as period of imprisonment by directing the accused-revision petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 3, to pay enhanced fine of amount of Rs.50,000/- each for the proved offences on or before 15.07.2025;
(ii) Failing to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- i.e. (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.3,000/- = Rs.6,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (enhanced fine amount) = Rs.56,000/-) by each
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087 CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021 C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020 CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021 HC-KAR of the accused/revision petitioners, the order of the trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned first Appellate Court would stand restored automatically;
The office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order, forthwith, for the purpose of issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT: AK