Hanumanthappa Basappa Gudagudi vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2102 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                         BEFORE
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100275 OF 2021

BETWEEN

HANUMANTHAPPA BASAPPA GUDAGUDI
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC NIL,
R/O. BADAMGATTI
TQ HANAGAL, DIST HAVERI
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VIJAY S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE
CASE SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY IN
PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.87/2018 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 13.08.2021 IN RESPECT OF REMANDING BACK THE
MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH A DIRECTION TO PROCEED
WITH THE MATTER ACCORDING TO LAW AS OBSERVED IN THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.87/2018 BY I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI.
                              2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The revision petitioner has called in question

the legality and correctness of the impugned order

dated 13.08.2021 passed by the I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl.A.No.87/2018,

whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside

the conviction and sentence passed against the

revision petitioner by the trial Court and remanded

the matter back with a direction to proceed with the

matter in accordance with the observations made in

the judgment.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge

having observed that the trial Court has failed to

find out any reasons to base conviction and further

observing that the judgment does not make out

clearly which accused during which period under

which document has committed the

misappropriation, was not proper in remanding the

matter, after setting aside the conviction and

sentence. It is his contention that learned Sessions

Judge has considered the merits of the case and

found that there is no material to show that accused

has committed misappropriation and therefore ought

to have acquitted the accused.

3. The learned Magistrate vide common

judgment dated 26.05.2018 passed in C.C.

Nos.57/2008 to 60/2008, convicted accused nos.1,2

and 4 for an offence punishable under Section 409 of

IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount,

to further undergo simple imprisonment for three

months. Accused no.3 was acquitted of the charged

offence.

4. The said judgment and order of conviction

and sentence was challenged in Crl.A.No.87/2018 by

accused no.2 i.e. petitioner herein before the

Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge vide

judgment dated 13.08.2021 set aside the impugned

judgment and remanded back the matter to the trial

Court.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment passed

by the Sessions Court show that the said judgment

was not passed on merits. The matter was remanded

back on the ground that the trial Court has framed

separate charges against each of the accused on the

basis of different allegations, but passed a common

judgment convicting the accused without considering

the defence and without verifying the documents

properly.

6. The learned Sessions Judge has observed

that the trial Court should have opted to pass

judgment separately since separate evidence in each

case has been recorded. Hence, without touching

the merits of the case, learned Sessions Judge has

set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court, observing that after

hearing the arguments on merits, with proper

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, trial

Court should pass separate verdict. The evidence

adduced before the trial Court has not been re-

appreciated. Hence, contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions

Judge has considered the merits of the case and

found insufficient material against the petitioner and

therefore, it was not proper in remanding the

matter,is not acceptable. There is no error

committed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore,

revision petition does not merit any consideration,

accordingly, it is dismissed.

IA No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration

and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE HMB