The State Of Karnataka vs Nigappa S/O Cndramppa Baski And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2905 Kant

                           1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200045/2016


BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
P.S.I. TALIKOTI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PRESECUTOR, KALABURAGI.
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

AND:

1.     NAGAPPA
       S/O. CHANDRAPPPA BASKI
       AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC-RETIRED
       GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
       R/O. HIRE MASALI, TQ: INDI
       DIST: VIJAYAPUR

2.   KASHIRAI
     S/O. NINGAPPA NAGUR
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
     R/O. HARNAL VILLAGE
     TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST: VIJAYAPUR
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADV.)
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.12.2015 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.06/2015 AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20/2015 AND ETC.

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

                          ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition is by the State

challenging the order passed in Criminal Appeal

Nos.06/2015 and 20/2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The respondents herein were charge sheeted for the

offence punishable under Sections 498, 408 and 409 of IPC

and stood trial in C.C.No.27/2009 dated 06.01.2015.

3. Learned JMFC, Muddebihal by order dated

06.01.2015, convicted the accused for the aforesaid

offences and passed an order of conviction and sentenced

the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year

for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC and

two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable

under section 409 of IPC, without imposing any cost.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the

accused/respondents preferred an appeal in Criminal

Appeal No.6/2015, whereas, the State preferred an appeal

in Criminal Appeal No.20/2015 while the accused persons

sought for acquittal of the offences by challenging the

order of conviction passed by the Trial Magistrate, whereas

the State has sought for enhancement of sentence.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

allowed the appeal filed by the accused/respondents and

acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 408 and 409 of IPC. Consequently, dismissed the

appeal filed by the State seeking enhancement of the

sentence.

6. Since the accused persons are now acquitted

for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 409 of

IPC and consequently, the appeal filed by the State is also

dismissed. Thereafter, this Revision Petition is filed by the

State.

7. Against the order of acquittal, the Revision

Petition filed by the State is not maintainable. Accordingly,

the Revision Petition is dismissed.

8. However, this order shall not come in any way

of State filing appropriate appeal if so adviced.

9. In such an appeal, the State will have the

benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KA*