Karnataka High Court

Shri S Jayarajan S/O Late ... vs State By Cbi on 18 December, 2021

Bench: V Srishananda

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

           CRL.RP. NO.154 OF 2010 C/W
              CRL.RP NO.79 OF 2021

IN CRL.RP. NO.154 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

SHRI. S. JAYARAJAN
S/O LATE SWAMINATHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
MAZDOOR RBI BANGALORE
R/AT 7/80 HENNUR ROAD
5TH CROSS, LINGARAJPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 084               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY CBI, S.P.E., DIVISION
BANGALORE - 560 009, REP. BY
S.P.P. HIGH COURT                  ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS      FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION    IN  C.C.NO.1567/1981   ON    DATED
28.11.2005 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XVII-ACMM,
BANGALORE     AND   ALSO   THE    JUDGMENT     OF
CONVICTION CONFIRMED BY THE XXXII-ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGED AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI
                         2




CASES,    BANGALORE     IN    CRIMINAL    APPEAL
NO.1729/2005 DATED 13.11.2009.


IN CRL.RP NO.79 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SHRI. K.S.RADHA KRISHNAN
S/O LATE K. SUBRAMANYAN
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT G1, JANAJEEVA APARTMENT
6TH F CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 093
PRESENTLY CONVICTED AND
LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE - 560 100               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CBI, SPE/DIVISION BANGALORE
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P. SPL.P.P.)

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS     FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 28.11.2005 IN C.C.NO.1567/1981 ON THE FILE
OF THE XVII A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU DISPOSED VIDE,
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 380, 381 420
READ WITH 120B OF IPC IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CHARGE SHEET 23.02.1982 IN R.C.NO.38/1978 OF CBI,
SPE   DIVISION    BENGALURU    ARRAIGNING    THE
APPELLANT HEREIN AS ACCUSED NO.9 AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28.11.2005 WHICH
                             3




IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ACQUIT/DISCHARGE THE
APPELLANT AS NOT GUILTY AND SET THEM AT LIBERTY.

    THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS ARE
COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

The present revision petitions are filed by the

accused persons who have suffered an order of

conviction for the offences punishable under Sections

380, 381, 420 and 120B of IPC in C.C.No.1567/1981 by

order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the XVII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

Upon the complaint lodged by the competent

persons to the effect that K.M.Mathews along with

accused persons conspired together to commit an

offence whereby the soiled notes which were sought for

destruction was handed over to the accused persons

and they in turn without destructing the soiled notes,

re-circulated the same and thereby committed the

offence and also had a wrongful gain for themselves

resulting in wrongful loss to the Government and thus,

sought for action against the accused persons.

3. The jurisdictional police after investigation,

handed over the investigation to Corps of Detectives

(COD) and laid a charge sheet against the accused for

the aforesaid offences. The presence of the accused

persons were secured, charge was framed. The accused

persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

During the trial, the accused persons stood discharged

and some of them died.

4. In order to prove the case against the

remaining accused persons, prosecution in all examined

22 witnesses and relied on 51 documents which were

marked and exhibited as Exs.P.1 to P.52. During the

course of cross-examination of the prosecution

witnesses, defense marked four documents which are

marked and exhibited as Exs.D.1 to D.4. Prosecution

has also relied on material objects as M.Os.1 to 21

which are soiled currency notes said to have been re-

circulated by the accused persons.

5. After conclusion of the trial, accused

statement is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

recorded by the trial Magistrate wherein the

accused/revision petitioners denied all the incriminating

circumstances found against them in the prosecution

evidence. However, accused/revision petitioners did not

choose to have their version on record either by

examining themselves or by filing necessary written

submissions as contemplated under Section 313(5) of

Cr.P.C.

6. Learned trial Magistrate thereafter heard the

parties in detail and passed an order of conviction

convicting the revision petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 381, 420 read with Section

120-B of IPC and passed an order of sentence in both

the cases as under:-

"ORDER

(1)Acting under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., A-3 to A-5, A-

7, A-9, A-11 and A-14 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 420 read with section 120-B IPC.

(2)All the accused persons are sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year each and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

each, for the offence punishable under Section 120- B IPC and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused persons shall undergo S.I. for six months. (3)All the accused persons shall undergo S.I. for one year each and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and in default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- as stated above, each of the accused shall undergo S.I. for six months.

(4)All the accused persons shall undergo S.I. for one year each and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- as stated above, each accused shall undergo S.I. for further period of six months.

(5)Thus, each of the accused persons shall pay a total fine of Rs.3,000/- for all the above said offences. The simple imprisonment imposed for each of the offences in respect of each of the accused shall run concurrently."

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial

Magistrate, accused/revision petitioners filed the appeal

as depicted supra in the table. Learned Judge in the

First Appellate Court, after securing the records and

hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeals filed

by the revision petitioners by confirming the order of

conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial

Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision

petitioners are before this Court in these revision

petitions.

8. In the revision petitions, following grounds

are raised:-

In Crl.R.P.No.154/2010

a) "Both the courts below gravely erred in Convicting the petitioner for the Offences punishable Under Section 120-B, 381, 420 of IPC is manifestly erroneous and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case.

b) Both the courts below gravely erred that, on the evidence of PW-2 without any corroboration and even Pw-2 is none other than approver and relaying on the statement that is Ex-p1 which is inadmissible because before recording Ex-p1 his 161 statement was not at all been recorded by Pw- 22 the investigating officer and without such a statement only relying upon 164(4) Cr.P.C statement is totally inadmissible under law which is completely ignored by the court below.

c) Both the courts below gravely erred that, even according to the evidence of Pw-21 he received a telephonic message that a soiled and punched notes said to have been misused when he was visited to RBI Bangalore and the same has been informed to the head office and thereafter he also

visited to vault and verified the Soiled and punched pockets he found that there is some discrepancies and same has been reported and thereafter he was been asked to investigate the matter but the evidence of Pw-21 does not discloses from which year to which year i.e., 1978-79 who was the in charge of the vault and without permission of the vault officer/treasurer no soiled or punched notes has been removed and even they are also maintaining a stock register where in date wise the number of soiled and punched notes will be recorded in the said book and finally it will be kept for burning but neither Vault officer nor stock register maintained is not examined this clearly goes to show that the trial court below have not appreciated the point of law as per provision.

d) Both the courts below gravely erred that, in accepting that Ex-p51 who is the investigating officer who registered a case on suo-motto without there being any such complaint on 07.07.1979 by implication of the names this petitioner and others and even he filed a charge sheet against this petitioner and 16 others out of them even at the stage of charge some of the Accused persons have been discharged i.e., Accused No.1,6,10,15,16,17 have been discharged by the Hon'ble court below which is also confirmed by this Hon'ble court and this clearly goes to show that investigation conducted by the PW-22 is tainted one and even this important aspect has been completely ignored by the court below.

e) Both the courts below gravely erred that, in convicting the petitioner by relaying upon the evidence of pw-2 who is an approver and even in the evidence he clearly admits that he is the sole person who is stolen away the soiled and punching notes from the counter and has been used because during 1977 he used to drink and he was a drunker and also a gambler he used to take part in horse race due to this bad habits he was finding difficult to lead his life from the salary he further admits that he had taken a debt due to the above said bad habits and also he was badly in need of the money and he also admitted that he was removed the currency notes fit for circulation, soiled notes and also defaced currency notes from RBI in spite of this admission made by the pw-2 still convicting the petitioner by the court below is highly unsustainable under law.

f) Both the courts below gravely erred that, accepting the evidence of this witness without any independent corroboration and in fact pw-2 clearly admitted that after the insisting of the defaced currency notes pocket for the first time he continued in service for almost 2 years thereafter during the span of those 2 years the same did not came to the notice of any body though accounts were being tallied everyday and even he did not know as what happened about defaced currency notes which he had inserted for the first time in the new currency notes pocket even till today nobody has told him that there was defaced pockets in the

new currency note pocket and this important aspect is also not been appreciated by the court below.

g) Both the courts below gravely erred that, without appreciating the admission made by the pw-2 that he did inserted straightly and defaced currency pockets in the new currency notes chest in his section during the beginning of 1977 and even at the end of the day nobody noticed the same and even he did not used any duplicate keys for opening the cash chest or for the purpose of inserting the defaced currency notes pocket in the new currency notes pocket box and even on the next working day nobody noticed about the presence of the defaced currency notes pocket in the new currency notes pocket box and even the officer who opens the new currency notes box said to be contained a defaced currency notes pocket then it would definitely noticed by him on such defaced currency notes has been found in the new currency notes box then the matter would have been probed but there is no such thing has been done till Pw-22 has registered a Suo-Motto case nobody has complained against the shortage of soiled or punched notes this important aspect is completely ignored by the court below.

h) Both the court below gravely erred that, according to the evidence of Pw-2 that he said to have been joined in the bank as in cash department in 1972 and thereafter he was worked has cash and note examiner grade-2 and he worked in A,B,C,D sections and there are several supervisors

immediately above him and in the initial stages of his service he was honest and thereafter he borrowed a rupees 500/- at the rate of 16% interest as a debt by one Late Chhina Dorai working as peon through Venkatesh who was working in cash department even though he have returned to Late Chhina Dorai more than 1000/- rupees as the interest, and he was not satisfied. Then Late Chhina Dorai gave complaint against the petitioner and others then this petitioner came and started pressurizing him and threatening him to give back the money to Chinna Dorai but he admitted that while they came to know the real fact about Chinna Dorai they turned hostile towards him if cinnadorai complained against him in 1976 but he said complaint was then to the beginning of the 1977 incident but which is totally a contrary version of Pw-2 because he do not know on which year the 100 rupees denomination pockets of soiled and punched notes given to him and if that was to corroborate his evidence no such complaint have been reported by the vault officers and even Pw2 also further admitted that only defaced currency notes are being stored at cancelled note vault and at any point of time he has not been caught red handed by any body while indulging in the commission of alleged offence and at any point of time CBI police or RBI have not seized any documents or currency notes from him in connection with the alleged crime and he has not been enquired by the CBI officials or RBI officials

concerning alleged variation of seal impression or variation or difference in entries in any books or registered maintained by me or maintained at the bank and he further admits that while receiving the new currency notes he used to count the same and also inturn while accounting in the evening he used to count and return to the concerned officer during the year 1977 while the class 4th servants of his section were to go out of the section, they were being checked by the security staff. The said security staff were being present at the entry door of his section and even the presence of this petitioner on a particular day is nowhere corroborated from the evidence of Pw-2 inspite of this the petitioner has been convicted which is highly unsustainable under law.

i) Both the courts below gravely erred that, if the totality of the evidence of the pw-2 is been accepted absolutely there is no any Prima-fasciae case is made out because Mo's 1 to 21 have been collected from the vault and it is the case of the prosecution that these Mo-1,7,16 which is having a punching marking and also twice marked along with other Mo's if these Mo's even prior to making 2nd marking these notes was in possession of vault officers and it is pertaining to note that in the evidence of pw-2 that the defaced notes are sent with armed security escorts to incinerator, and the officers concerned would accompany the security and the incinerator work is being done in the presence of the concerned officers and those

concerned officer would take care of the said defaced currency notes even at the stage of incinerators which clearly shows that it is highly impossible either to remove or insert such currency notes and even the punching in front of the supervisor i.e., PW 14 and 15 by diverting their attention as if they received a phone call and on the instruction of the petitioner and others the pw-14 and 15 did the work not corroborate the evidence of the Pw-2 in spite of such a lacuna the petitioner has been convicted is highly unsustainable under law.

j) Both the courts below gravely erred that, absolutely there is no any clinching circumstances that the petitioner entered in to vault at any point of time nor he was entered into the cash section as it has been clearly admitted in the evidence of the Pw-2 that none will be allowed in a cash section nor vault area without any permission this material aspect is totally ignored by the court below.

k) Both the courts below gravely erred that, the evidence of Pw3 to 20 did not assist any incriminating materials against the petitioner inspite of that this petitioner has been convicted by the court below which is unsustainable under law."

In Crl.R.P.No.79/2021

a) Facts narrated above form certain grounds and hence, the same may kindly be read as a part of these grounds.

b) That, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore was predominantly based on the confession statements of one Mr.Mathew, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the then XVII CMM Bangalore, and that pardon was tendered to the said accused person and he was later examined as a Witness.

c) After the committal proceedings, the learned XVII ACMM, Bangalore Charged the Appellant Accused for the offences of which the cognizance was already taken. The charge was read over and upon the Accused Appellant pleading his innocence and denying the charges; the matter was set to trial.

d) To lay strength of its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses though it had cited only a few witnesses in the charge sheet and got marked 51 documents and most of it was relevant entry and punching registers. The Prosecution also marked MO's 1 to 21 ie., soiled and punched Currency Note packets. When such moves were noticed, the learned Judge ought to have examined the dropped witnesses as court witnesses in order to dispense complete justice. But the same was not done and it has resulted in deep injustice to the innocent.

e) After the conclusion of evidence, 313 statements were recorded wherein the Petitioner had denied the incriminating parts of the Evidence of the Prosecution. The very look of the 313 statements that was prepared in advance by typing one after the other question after a small space meant for

recording the answer shows that it was not done to meet the actual legislative intention that the court should hear the version of the accused in detail as against the prosecution evidence and consider the negating circumstances. On the other hand, mentioning single word handwritten answers in tightly designated spaces shows that it was done as dumb formality. The accused appellant, herein the petitioner had much to say in defense and a lot in contrast to the fallacies of the prosecution witnesses. But the same has gone without consideration and there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner herein except that he was working with other accused persons. The Petitioner was unequivocally clear that there was absolutely no intended or planned so called incident.

f) The defense also showed it materially to court that the incident the prosecutor so as to use it as a tool to avenge the long-standing political rivalry and bitterness against the co-accused persons Mr. Mathew has turned approval. It was shown beyond doubt that there was absolutely no strength of independent witnesses and all those examined were partisan. It was also exhibited to the court that there were serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of almost all the prosecution witnesses and more particularly there are no eye- witnesses. But everything was given a go bye and disaster was meted out to the innocent.

g) The defense showed it to the hilt that it was admittedly a financial dispute between PW-2 Mr.

Mathew and some unknown persons but the learned judge lost sight of all and rushed to trust the weak prosecution confession statement as gospel truth.

h) It is also pertinent to mention here that way back in 12.12.1997, the appellant herein has also filed an application under section 306 read with section 309 of Cr.P.C. stating that, "though it is stated that pardon was given to A2 Mr. Mathew and treated him as approver but the said order is not available in the records and said Mr.Mathew cannot be considered as an approver unless the said order is available" but the said approver order was never traced even then the appellant was convicted on the basis on the statement made by said Mr.Mathew.

i) Huge efforts were made to showcase the aspect that the witnesses were not credible and prosecution via the prosecutor only dropped certain witnesses who were vulnerable to throwing out the truth. It was also evidently shown to the court that the party of the complainant was rather quarrelsome and irksome, and their antecedents clearly spoke of it.

j) The learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the essence of the elicitations through cross examination and the repeated suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses about the time at which the incident took place.

k) The learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that none of the witnesses who uttered against

the appellant herein, hearsay and their versions suffered contradictions and omissions, thereby losing the weight and value of a "Strong and Cogent Evidence fit enough to hold a particular fact as "proved beyond any reasonable doubt". Hence, the conviction of Appellant herein is on erroneous perception and discrepant ab-initio.

l) The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances that clearly suggested to the effect that the Accused had not been involved in the alleged offence. The learned Judge also failed to appreciate the severe contradictions and collapse of evidence of the alleged witnesses and the PW1 complainant. There was a clear absence of appellant's involvement as explained by them both in the complaint statement and in their evidence. This fact was ignored by the learned judge.

m) The learned judge failed to notice that the except the entry and there is nothing forthcoming in the registry which is got marked by the prosecution and the entire case is relied only on the statement made by the PW2 Mr. Mathew. Thus, there is clear failure of justice.

n) It is humbly submitted that the judgment passed by Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 4- CBI), in Crl.A/818/2020 dated 14.12.2020, the order passed by the court was against the petitioner in this case and the case was dismissed due to there being no sufficient reason for the condonation of delay.

o) It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Judge in the above mentioned matter did not fully look into the merits of the case, and the reasoning as to why there was such a delay. He did not consider the fact that the petitioner himself being an old man, was taking care of his ailing wife and also that there is no strong incriminating evidence against the petitioner and on 7-12-2020 the petitioner wife Smt.Sharada was filed the sworn affidavit before court stating that the petitioner is suffering with absent mindedness and forgetfulness but this aspect is affidavit is very much present in the lower court filed but the learned Sessions judge was even not looked into. A copy of the affidavit herewith produced as Annexure - E, hence, the order passed against the petitioner for the condonation of delay is not sustainable or tenable.

p) The appellant was taken into custody on 28.10.2020 and he is 76 years old suffering from various health ailments himself.

q) Overall, the court below wrongly and without any material came to a wrong conclusion of holding the appellant guilty. Hence, the judgment and order of sentence are wholly unsustainable.

r) The appellant prays to plead and submit such other additional grounds in support of his case at the time of hearing of the matter.

s) The appellant has not approached any other court of law or legal forum seeking similar reliefs on the same cause of action and not such matters are

pending and the appellant has left with no other efficacious alternative remedy in the matter."

9. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision

petitions, Sri.Rakshith R. and Sri.Shyam Sundar M.S.,

learned counsel representing the revision petitioners

contended that both the Courts have wrongly convicted

the accused persons resulting in miscarriage of justice

and sought for allowing the revision petitions.

10. Per contra, Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned

counsel for respondent-CBI has contended that the very

fact of marking M.Os.1 to 21, which are soiled currency

notes meant for destruction was re-circulated and

collected from the general public itself completes the

offence and without the active participation and free

consent of the accused/revision petitioners along with

other accused, the offence did not have taken place and

therefore, all the ingredients to attract offences

punishable under Sections 381, 420 read with Section

120-B of IPC stood established by placing necessary

oral and documentary evidence on record and sought

for dismissal of the revision petitions.

11. In reply, learned counsel for the revision

petitioners contended that in the event this Court comes

to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial

Magistrate and the learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court is to be maintained, taking note of the age of the

revision petitioners and also taking note of the fact that

the revision petitioners have lost their job and they

being the first time offenders, the Court may grant

probation.

12. In view of the rival contentions and having

regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction, the

following points would arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court that accused persons are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 381, 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC is suffering from patent factual defect, legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction or perversity and thus, calls for interference?

2. Whether the sentence is excessive?

13. In the case on hand, admittedly the accused

persons were the employees of Reserve Bank of India

and were in-charge of destruction of the soiled currency

notes is established by placing necessary oral and

documentary evidence on record. Material objects

namely M.Os.1 to 21 marked by the prosecution is

admittedly collected from the general public meant for

destruction and accordingly, the same was destructed.

If currency notes at M.Os.1 to 21 were destructed as

per the directions of the officials of the Bank, how it

could be again found from the general public. It is a

question that remains unanswered by the accused

persons, which clearly establishes that soiled currency

notes, which were meant for destruction came to be re-

circulated. Unless the accused persons had a role in re-

circulating the soiled currency notes which were meant

for destruction, the currency notes would not have been

seized from the general public. These aspects of the

matter have been rightly appreciated by the learned

trial Magistrate while holding that accused persons are

guilty of the offences alleged against them.

14. Further, there is no explanation whatsoever

forthcoming from the accused persons at the time of

recording the accused statements or at least they

placed their version about the incident. Under such

circumstances, when the positive evidence is placed by

the prosecution and there is no explanation offered by

the accused persons with regard to the incriminating

circumstances found in the prosecution case, the trial

Magistrate was justified in holding that accused persons

are guilty of the offences as aforesaid.

15. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

with regard to the Appellate scope and jurisdiction, re-

appreciated the entire materials in the light of the

grounds urged in the appeal and also after verifying the

material evidence on record has confirmed the findings

recorded by the trial Magistrate.

16. This Court having regard to the scope of the

revisional jurisdiction, re-considered the order passed

by the learned trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the

First Appellate Court. On such re-consideration, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned

judgments are based on sound and logical reasons and

there is no legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction or patent

factual defects in the case so as to call the impugned

judgment as perverse judgment. Under such

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion

that no case is made out by the revision petitioners to

record a contra finding than that of the findings

recorded in the impugned judgments. Accordingly,

point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

17. Point No.2:-

Admittedly, the revision petitioners have lost their

job as regard to the conviction order faced by them.

They are deprived of the retirement benefits as well in

accordance with law. Further, taking note of the age of

the revision petitioners and noting that they are the first

time offenders and there is no scope for them to repeat

the offence as they have lost their job, this Court is of

the considered opinion that ordering the imprisonment

at this sequence of time to the revision petitioners may

work out harsh on them. The fine imposed by the trial

Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is a

meager fine.

18. This Court having been exercising the

jurisdiction to grant probation to the revision

petitioners, it is always open for this Court to enhance

the fine amount. Accordingly, this Court is of the

considered opinion that if each of the accused persons

be directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and

execute a bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court for their good behavior, which shall be in force for

a period of two years would meet the ends of justice

instead of confirming the sentence passed by the trial

Magistrate. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly

in the affirmative and pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision petitions are allowed-in-

part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused/revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC, the accused

persons are directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each for the aforesaid offences in all as against the fine imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court and further directed to execute a bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate for their good behaviour which shall be in force for a period of two years.

(iii) If there is any violation of the bond conditions or failing to pay the fine amount as ordered by this Court, the order of the trial Magistrate stands restored automatically.