Karnataka High Court
Sri R.N.Sharnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2022
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200060/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200061/2015
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200060/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri R.N.Sharanappa S/o Nagappa,
Age : 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Hampanur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 24.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.1039/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.49/2015 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200061/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri Govindraj S/o Rangappa,
Age : 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Chikkabennur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 22.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.924/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
3
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.67/2014 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
These revision petitions coming on for Final Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These two revision petitions are filed against the
order dated 24.11.2009 passed in CC No.1039/2002 by
the Court of Prl. JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated
07.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.236/2009 by the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur against the revision
petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa and the order dated
23.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.924/2002 by the court of Prl.
JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated 26.12.2014 passed in
C.C.No.235/2009 by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raichur against the revision petitioner -Govindarju N.R.
2. The details of the criminal case, appeals
punishment, default sentence are as under :-
In respect revision petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa (CC
No.236/2009 dated 07.10.2014)
Criminal Appeal
Offence Punishment Fine Default sentence
465 & 471 01 year `5,000/- 03 months
IPC
Crl.A.No.49/2014
468 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months
473 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months
420 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months
In respect revision petitioner-Govindraju N.R -
(C.C.No.235/2009 dated 26.12.2014)
Criminal Appeal
Offence Punishment Fine Default sentence
465 IPC 01 year 1,000/- 03 months
468 IPC 04 years 5,000/- 01 year Crl.A.No.67/2014
471 IPC 01 year 1,000/- 03 months
473 IPC 04 years 5,000/- 06 months
3. Brief facts of these cases are as under :-
PSI, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur filed charge-
sheet against the revision petitioners herein and against
one Umashankar for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC before the
jurisdictional Magistrate. The said charge-sheet came to be
filed after investigating a complaint. Whereunder, it is
contended that on 15.12.2001 at the time of interview for
the post of the Teacher held in Government Boys Junior
College headed by Deputy Director of Public Instructions
(for short, 'DDPI') the revision petitioners submitted a fake
marks cards. The revision petitioners succeeded in the
interview and thereafter, the documents were collected
from the revision petitioners. On collection of the
documents, the same were sent for verification to the
respective Government Departments. On such verification,
it was noticed that the marks card of Sharanappa and
Teacher Certificate Higher (TCH) marks of card pertaining
to Govindraju were found to be fake marks cards and
whereby they cheated the DDPI. The matter was
investigated thoroughly and then charge-sheet came to be
filed.
Thereafter, presence of the accused persons were
secured before the learned trial Magistrate. The charge
was framed and accused persons pleaded not guilty and
therefore trial was held.
4. In order to prove the cases, in both the
revision petitions the prosecution examined number of
witnesses comprising of DDPI and Secretary of Karnataka
Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB). In fact
the documents including the fake marks cards and letters
issued by the competent authority were relied upon.
Thereafter, accused statement as contemplated under the
provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein
accused persons denied all the incriminatory materials
founds against them. However, the accused person did not
place any material evidence on record to controvert the
version of the prosecution witnesses by examining
themselves or filing necessary written submission as is
contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C.
5. Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate heard the
parties in detail and passed an order of conviction and
sentence as referred in table supra.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioners approached first appellate court in Criminal
Appeal Nos.49 and 67 of 2014 as referred to supra.
Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court secured the
records and after hearing the parties, dismissed the
appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Magistrate.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the revisions
petitioners are before this court in these revision petitions.
8. In the Revision Petitions, the following grounds
are raised:
In Crl.R.P.No.200060/2015
x The impugned order passed by the court below is illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to the law and records against the
principles of natural justice.
x Both the courts below have failed to consider that the
prosecution has not proved guilt of the petitioners beyond
all reasonable doubt.
x Both the courts below are convicted the petitioners only on
the evidence of interested witnesses and the prosecution
has failed to adduce independent witnesses to prove the
guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence
the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for.
x The petitioner who has studied in the institution recognized
by the pre university board and completed his course the
institution has issued marks card the very same marks
cards are produced before the authority. The petitioner not
concerned to the issue.
x It is submitted that the petitioner himself says that he has
not applied for the post of teacher as he has ready taken
defense in the appeal.
x There is a contradiction, omission improvement in the
evidence of the prosecution same has not been
considered by both the courts below, which is led to
passing of the impugned judgment challenged in the above
revision.
x That the P.W.2, 4 have toured hostile. The both the courts
below relied and considered the evidence of Pw 2 and 4
and convicted the petitioner, on that judgment passed by
both the courts below are liable to be set aside.
x It is submitted that the prosecution has not produced
material to show that the petitioner has forged the
documents.
x That the prosecution has failed to prove that the who has
lodged complaint has not been proved which is fatal to the
case of the prosecution, same has not been considered by
both the courts below. Hence the indulgence of this
Hon'ble court is sought for
x Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the impugned
order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to the law and records of the case besides being
against the principles of natural justice."
In Crl.R.P.No.200060/2015
x The impugned order passed by the court below is illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to the law and records against the
principles of natural justice.
x Both the courts below have failed to consider that the
prosecution has not proved guilt of the petitioners beyond
all reasonable doubt.
x Both the courts below are convicted the petitioner only on
the evidence of interested witnesses and the prosecution
has failed to adduce independent witnesses to prove the
guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence
the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for.
x That the P.W. 3 panch witness has toured hostile and P w
4 has not supported the prosecution version in the chief
examination, and he has been treated as hostile witness
and permission has been granted to cross examine the
said witness by the prosecution, in the cross examination
he has supported the version of the prosecution in the
cross examination the P.W. 4 has supported the version of
the prosecution. The both the courts below relied and
considered the evidence of P w 4 and convicted the
petitioner, on that judgment passed by both the courts belo
are liable to be set aside.
x It is submitted that the prosecution has not produced
material to show (5) that the petitioner has forged the
documents.
x That the prosecution has failed to prove that the who has
lodged complaint has not been proved which is fatal to the
case of the prosecution, same has not been considered by
both the courts below. Hence the indulgence of this
Hon'ble court is sought for.
x That the prosecution has failed to prove that where
the documents were recovered since the pancha
witness has not supported the version of
prosecution conviction in the absence of the same
is not proper.
x Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the impugned
order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to the law and records of the case besides being
against the principles of natural justice."
9. On behalf of the revision petitioners,
Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki vehemently contended that
both the courts have not properly appreciated the material
evidence on record while convicting the accused person for
the offences alleged against them.
10. He also contends that the revision petitioners
had no hand in the marks cards being given to them and
they were not knowing that it is fake marks card and in
fact they themselves have been cheated by Umashankar
who has also been convicted and he is now reported to be
dead and sought for allowing the revision petitions.
11. Alternatively, Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki
contends that the accused persons who are revision
petitioners namely Sharanappa is aged about 46 years and
Govindraju is aged about 42 years and they have married
and well settled in the family and they eaking out their
livelihood through agricultural work and at this juncture of
time, if they are sent to imprisonment the entire family of
the revision petitioners would be put to great hardship and
sought for grant of probation by taking lenient view or by
enhancing the fine amount.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently contended that both the courts below
have rightly appreciated the material evidence on record
while recording an order of conviction of the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences and having regard to
the nature of the offences alleged against the accused
persons, this court cannot grant probation to the accused
persons and sought for dismissal of the revision petitions
in toto.
13. In view of the rival contentions, having regard
to the scope of the Revisional jurisdiction, the following
points that would arise for consideration are:
"1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned
Magistrate confirmed that accused is guilty
of the offences punishable under Sections
465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC, which
was confirmed by the First Appellate Court
is suffering from legal infirmity, error of
jurisdiction, patient factual defects or
perversity and thus, calls for interference?
2. Whether the sentence is excessive?"
14. In the case on hand, the letter issued by the
Competent Authority shows that the marks cards produced
by the revision petitioners at the time of interview is fake
marks card. Revision petitioner-Sharanappa produced PUC
marks card whereas revision petitioner-Govindaraju
furnished the TCH marks card. The competent authority
after verification of the records at their end found that the
marks cards produced by the revision petitioners are
concocted and forged for the purpose of obtaining the
Government job namely for the post of Teacher.
15. The said aspect of the matter is proved by
prosecution by producing necessary oral and documentary
evidence on record.
16. Knowingfully well that the marks cards of the
revision petitioners are fake and concocted one, the
revision petitioners has appeared for the interview for the
post of Teacher in the Government Boys Junior College,
headed by DDPI.
17. It is pertinent to note that at the time of
joining the post of the teacher itself, the accused persons
have gone to the extent of producing a fake marks cards in
order to obtain the Government job. The said aspect of the
matter having been successfully proved by placing
necessary oral and documentary evidences on record.
18. Learned trial Magistrate has discussed in detail
about the conduct of the accused and the verification made
by the competent authority and also the original marks
cards produced by the accused/revision petitioners and on
verification the same is found to be fake one and the
signature found in the marks cards is also forged. Thereby
all the ingredients required to attract the offence alleged
against the stood proved by placing cogent and convincing
evidences on record.
19. Learned Judge in the first appellate court while
reappreciating the material on record in the appeals filed
by the revision petitioners, not only concurred with the
finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate but has
also supplemented the reasons for maintaining the order of
conviction. While so doing, the learned Judge in the first
appellate Court has also specifically referred to the oral
evidence of PW.7 wherein the registration number of the
accused persons and the case against the accused
persons and the marks obtained by them and also the seal
that is affixed on the fake marks cards has been taken
note of and a factual finding has been recorded by the first
appellate court that the prosecution is successful in
establishing that accused persons have concocted marks
cards for the purpose of obtaining a government job for
the post of Teacher.
20. This court having regard to the limited scope in
the revisional jurisdiction, reconsidered the entire material
on record.
21. As could be seen from the material available
on record, the revision petitioners appeared before the
DDPI in Government Boys Junior College, Raichur for
attending the interview for the post of Teacher. After
successfully completing the interview, they have furnished
the marks cards. Revision petitioners namely Sharanappa
has produced the marks card of PUC whereas Govindarju
has produced the marks card of TCH. As per prescribed
procedure, the office of the DDPI sent the marks cards for
the purpose of verification. However, to the utter surprise
of the DDPI, the marks cards produced by the revision
petitioners were found to be concocted and a complaint
came to be lodged in this regard. The police after thorough
investigation found that the marks cards produced by the
revision petitioners were concocted for the purpose of
obtaining the Government job. All these factors have been
sufficiently established by the prosecution by placing
cogent and convincing evidence on record. It is pertinent
to note that none the prosecution witnesses did not
nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the
revision petitioners herein. Under such circumstances, why
would be the DDPI or the investigating agency foist a false
case against the revision petitioners is a question that
remains enhance.
22. Under these circumstances, having
reconsidered the material evidence on record this court is
of the considered opinion that there is no legal infirmity or
perversity or patient factual defect or error of jurisdiction
in both the trial courts regarding finding that the revision
petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered in the negative.
Regarding point No.2
23. The trial Magistrate has passed an order of
sentence against the revision petitioners as referred to
supra.
24. It is no contended by on behalf of the revision
petitioners that Sharanappa is aged 46 years and
Govindaraju is aged about 42 years. During the trial,
Sharanappa has spent about 10 days in custody and
Govindaraju has spent about 20 days in custody.
25. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioners
are aged 46 years and 42 years respectively and they have
now well settled in the society by eking-out their livelihood
through agricultural work, at this juncture if they are sent
to the jail, not only the revision petitioners would be put to
great hardship and injury but also their family would also
suffer a lot. Taking note of the fact that they are age
barred and they are unable to apply for any government
job in future, this court is of the considered opinion that by
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of `75,000/- each of
the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences in all and
custody period already undergone by them as referred to
supra would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point
No.2 is answered and following :
ORDER
The revision petitions are allowed in part.
While maintaining the order of conviction of the
revision petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC, the period
spent by revision petitioners for a period of 10 days and 20
days respectively in the custody is treated as period of
imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of `75,000/-
inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the first appellate court.
Time is granted to pay the fine amount till
15.02.2022.
It is made clear that if revision petitioners fail to
deposit the fine amount the order of the trial Court
confirmed by the first Appellate court stands restored
automatically.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
