Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Rajesh Kumar C.K.Jain S/O Champalal ... on 9 November, 2016
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 200053/2016
Between:
The State of Karnataka
Through Town Police Station
Yadgiri Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor
Office of the Advocate General
Kalaburagi Bench at Kalabuargi
... Petitioner
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)
And:
Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain
S/o Champalal Jain
Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Saidapur Station
Tq and Dist. Yadgiri
... Respondent
(By Sri Ganesh Naik, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., praying to allow the above
Revision Petition and to set aside the order dated 24.03.2016
passed in Crl. Appeal No. 15/11 by the Sessions Judge at
-2-
Yadagiri and uphold the judgment in C.C.No. 402/10 dated
18-11-11 passed by the JMFC, Yadgiri.
This petition is coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Complainant- State in C.C.No.402/2010 on the file of JMFC, Yadgiri has come up in this revision petition impugning judgment dated 24.03.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15/2011 on the file of Sessions Court, Yadgiri wherein the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.402/2010 is set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are as under:
Admittedly accused/respondent is said to be owning certain lands in Kanekal village of Yadgiri taluk and district. It is stated that there was dispute regarding entries in Pahani with reference to Sy.Nos.188, 189 and 190 and same is pending before Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. In the proceeding before Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri settlement is said to have arrived at by the parties which is -3- reduced on a bond paper of the face value of Rs.100/- and filed in to Court. The accusation made against respondent in this proceeding is that he has committed theft of said bond paper, which was taken on record in the proceeding pending before the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, on the basis of complaint filed against him, proceeding in C.C.No.402/2010 was initiated which resulted in his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 201 of IPC, wherein, he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and nine months S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.
3. It is seen that said judgment and sentence was subject matter of an appeal before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.15/2011 on the file of Sessions Court, Yadgiri wherein the order of conviction and sentence is set aside by the learned Sessions Judge by its judgment dated 24.03.2016, which is sought to be impugned in this revision petition.
-4-
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for revision petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused in C.C.No.402/2010.
5. On going through the judgment impugned and as well as judgment rendered by Court of JMFC, it is seen that a serious error is committed by the Court of Sessions in not properly appreciating the material available on record. He has proceeded on the premise that applicant who had initiated proceeding before Assistant Commissioner was not present before the said officer and was represented by his son. When the complainant himself is not present before the Court, other portion of order dated 24.03.2016 would not come into force. It is also observed that there is no reference to the document, which is settlement arrived at between the parties and reduced on a stamp paper and in the absence of same, accusation against accused cannot be accepted. Accordingly, conviction and sentence passed against him is set aside.
-5-
6. After careful consideration of judgment impugned and as well as judgment rendered in C.C.No.402/2010, it is clearly seen that learned Sessions Court has taken the matter on a totally different direction without looking into order sheet dated 12.07.2010 maintained by Assistant Commissioner in the proceeding, which was pending before him wherein, it is clearly seen that there is recording by Assistant Commissioner to the effect that there was a move for settlement between Chandrashekar, Rajshekar C.K.Jain and Suresh Kumar C.K.Jain and further noting that they have affixed their signature on the order sheet to the said effect. If that is accepted, then filing of agreement for settlement cannot be disputed. So also, theft of said document by respondent herein as alleged in the complaint filed against him which is recovered from the police against him in C.C.No.402/2010.
7. In that view of matter, finding of learned Session Judge in holding that filing of such document before Assistant Commissioner is not established is contrary to the material available on record. Therefore, this Court would set -6- aside the judgment dated 24.03.2016 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.15/2011 and remand the matter to the Sessions Court to reconsider the same.
Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt Ct: MHS