Karnataka High Court
Bangarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29693
CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.440 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. BANGARAPPA
S/O. NARASHIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. YADEHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 227.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATARAMANA K S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
P.S.I. OF HOLEHONNUR POLICE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
REPTD. BY S.P.P.,
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING,
signed by
MALATESH BANGALORE-560 001.
KC ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 30.01.2016, PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
S.J., SHIMOGA, (SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI) IN
CRL.A.NO.149/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION DATED 16.07.2012 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.2934/2005 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI, BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF
THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29693
CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016
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 K.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C No.2934/2005 dated 16.07.2012 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.149/2012 dated 30th January 2016 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi, for the offence punishable under Sections 2(e)(i)(vi),(vii),2(o),3(iv),(v),(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Prevention of Malpractices Supply and Distribution Order, 1990, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29693 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016
4. Accused has been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences by Bhadravathi Rural Police Station, Bhadravati Taluk, Shivamogga District.
5. Samples collected from the petitioner were sent to laboratory and received the report to the effect that samples were not up to the required quality and therefore, accused was made to stand for trial.
6. After due trial, accused has been convicted. Accused filed an appeal which also on merits, came to be dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this court.
8. Sri K.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that only on the basis of samples accused has been wrongly convicted which is impermissible and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. Alternatively, he also contended that in the event of this court upholding the Order of conviction, having regard to the scope of revision, custody period of one month already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment having -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29693 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016 regard to the health condition of the petitioner who is bedridden and the fine amount may be enhanced reasonably.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments and also opposes the revision grounds including reduction of sentence.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that samples have been collected in the presence of independent witnesses from the petitioner. Samples were sent for chemical examination. Report placed on record shows that samples collected were not upto the required quality. Therefore report came to be filed and thereafter revision petitioner has been prosecuted for the aforesaid offences by filing necessary charge sheet.
12. After due trial, learned trial Judge considering the material evidence on record, especially report of the chemical examiner, who did not nurture any enmity or animosity as -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29693 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016 against the revision petitioner, convicted the accused as aforesaid.
13. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material on record confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.
14. This Court, that too in revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter in upsetting the findings recorded by the Courts. Accordingly, conviction needs no interference.
15. Having said thus, it is submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that petitioner is now aged 64 years and bedridden. Taking note of the fact that accused was in custody for a period of one month during the trial, same can be treated as the period of imprisonment having regard to the health condition and maximum imprisonment prescribed in the Statute for the aforesaid offences, by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
16. Accordingly, the following:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29693 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016 ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the order of conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(e)(i)(vi),(vii),2(o),3(iv),(v),(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Prevention of Malpractices Supply and Distribution Order, 1990, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court is modified as under:
(a) Custody period of one month already undergone by the revision petitioner is treated as the period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences and accused is directed to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine amount already imposed by the learned trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
(iii) Time is granted till 20th August 2024 to pay the fine amount.
(iv) Failure to make the enhanced payment of fine amount, order of conviction passed by the learned -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29693 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2016 Trial Judge confirmed by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court stands automatically restored.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89