The State Of Karnataka vs Sri U.Devaraj Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3561 Kant

                            1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.                               ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

AND:

SRI U.DEVARAJ KUMAR
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SHAILA HOUSE
UCHILA BADA VILLAGE
MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE,
UDUPI TALUK.                               ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/S.397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.166/2016
(COMMON     JUDGMENT    166/2016,   175/2016,  176/2016,
17/2017, 27/2017, 31/2017 AND 67/2017) PASSED BY THE IV
                               2




ADDITIONAL     DISTRICT   AND    SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.07.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.122/2016 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALURU,
D.K. THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 406, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

b) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U /S 406, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

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

                          ORDER

This matter is listed for admission today and heard the

learned counsel appearing for the parties on both sides.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that accused Nos.1 and 2 were running Manasa College

Educational Institution in Menejus Towers near Urva Stores of

Mangaluru City. The accused Nos.1 and 2 without obtaining

proper recognition of UGC of Government of India, with a

common intention to deceive the students have projected that

Manasa College run by them were affiliated to JNRV University

affiliated to UGC and make believe the students and thereby,

having committed the offences of criminal breach of trust,

cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 406, 420 and

120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC. Based on the complaint, a case

has been registered in C.C.No.122/2016.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges

examined the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PWs-1 to 8

and also relied upon documents, Exs.P1 to P18(a). On the

other hand, the respondents have not lead any evidence

before the Trial Court but only got marked the documents at

Ex.D1. On appreciation of both oral and documentary

evidence, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the

complainant/State has not proved the charges of conspiracy,

criminal breach of trust and fraud against the accused and

based only on paper publication, a case has been registered

making an allegation of criminal breach of trust and fraud.

Even the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the

witnesses have not made any attempt to make

correspondence to the UGC or to the concerned JNRV about

the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused Nos.1

and 2. They have not made any attempt to ascertain whether

the educational institution of the accused is only the study

centre to facilitate the students of JNRV to whom the

application submitted for different courses. The admission

made by the witnesses discloses that at the time of getting

admission to the College, it was informed by the Management

of the College that Manasa College is the study centre and he

could not say the number of the study centre. The Trial Court

has further observed that the evidence of these witnesses

does not disclose mens-rea or guilty intention of accused

Nos.1 and 2 while making paper advertisement as to joining

to the courses of their College or as to making criminal

conspiracy to deceive the students or as to commit cheating

or as to commit criminal breach of trust as contended by

them and hence acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2. The finding

of the Trial Court is challenged by the petitioner by filing

appeals and all the appeals are considered by the Appellate

Court and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the

entire material available on record comes to a conclusion that

the Trial Court has not passed any perverse order and it is

also not against the settled principles of law on the face of it

and also that acquittal of the accused does not lead to

miscarriage of justice. In other words, the Appellate Court

shall interfere with the acquittal judgment only if it finds

errors. The Appellate Court did not find any error committed

by the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of acquittal

passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision

petition is filed by the State.

4. The learned HCGP has vehemently contended that

both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating

both oral and documentary evidence available on record and

there is no deliberate discussion of the evidence available on

record. Even the Appellate Court has also reached at a wrong

conclusion, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The

counsel further submitted that the witnesses have

categorically stated that they have paid the amount and the

same has not been disputed. Hence, on the factual aspects,

the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed

an error in not appreciating the material on record.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits

that both the Courts have given a definite finding that the

offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of CPC has

not been proved and definite finding is also given by the Trial

Court in Paragraph No.34 of its judgment that the evidence of

the witnesses does not disclose the mens-rea or guilty

intention of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Apart from that, it has

come to a conclusion that based on the paper publication, the

complainant/prosecution has invoked criminal jurisdiction and

has not even verified with the UGC or to the concerned JNRV

about the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused

Nos.1 and 2. When the order passed by the Trial Court does

not suffer from any illegality or correctness and propriety, the

revisional jurisdiction is very limited and the same cannot be

exercised.

6. Having heard the learned HCGP appearing for the

revision petitioner as well as the accused No.2/respondent, it

is the case of the prosecution that the accused without

obtaining proper recognition of UGC of Government of India

have admitted the students that they will conduct B.Tech in

Marine Engineering Course for the academic year 2005-2006.

The students have been examined as prosecution witnesses

and the Trial Court considering both the oral and documentary

evidence, after detail discussion of each and every evidence

of the witnesses had arrived at a conclusion that only based

on the paper publication, the prosecution witnesses are

examined and the witnesses have not made any attempt to

make correspondence to the UGC or to the concerned JNRV

about the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused

Nos.1 and 2. The records also discloses that the other

students have already persuaded their education and had

obtained degree and the students who have been examined

on behalf of the prosecution have categorically deposed that

they have discontinued the education and when the allegation

of 'no permission' and 'no affiliation' is attributed and the

prosecution witnesses have not verified whether permission

was obtained or not and also whether the same is affiliated to

UGC or not and only based on the article appeared in the

newspaper, they have invoked criminal jurisdiction against

the respondent herein. When such being the factual aspects,

when concurrent finding is given by both the Courts and on

re-appreciation of the entire material available on record, the

Trial Court has come to a definite conclusion, this Court has to

look into the merits of the case while invoking revisional

jurisdiction. This Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction

if the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has manifestly

committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. The

order passed by the Trial Court do not suffer any illegality or

perversity and the same is passed after proper appreciation of

the entire material available on record, both oral and

documentary evidence.

7. In view of the discussion made above, this Court

cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction and I do not find any

error committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court. On appreciation of the evidence, detail findings are

given by both the Courts and no ingredients of the offence

punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC

is made out. When such being the case, this Court cannot

invoke revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the criminal revision

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH