Aswathanarayana @ Satyapalu vs State By Cod Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 3841 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.966/2012

BETWEEN:

ASWATHANARAYANA @ SATYAPALU
S/O VEERAPPA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A #558, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
                                              ... PETITIONER

           (BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, AMICUS CURIAE)

AND:

STATE BY COD POLICE
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT EXT
BANGALORE-560001
                                           ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
09.05.2011 PASSED BY THE I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.4659/2003 AND ETC.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2



                            ORDER

Heard the Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner and

the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner

with an dishonest intention to get a Government job had

impersonated PW1 - Sathyapalu @ K.S.Sathyaprasad by forging

the duplicate marks cards belonging to PW1. The petitioner

knowing fully well that those documents are not belonging to

him used them as a genuine documents and applied for the post

of Inspector in the Department of Legal Metrology. The

petitioner by virtue of the fabricated testimonials got appointed

as the Inspector in the Department of Legal Metrology through

KPSC. Thus, he has cheated the Government. Hence, on the

complaint given by PW3, the then Dy.SP, COD, Bangalore,

initially a case was registered in Cubbon Park P.S. under

Cr.No.110/2002 and later on the case was transferred to COD,

Bangalore and the PI, COD after having conducted a detailed

investigation has submitted the charge-sheet.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the case,

examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1

to P37. The petitioner/accused himself examined as DW1 and

got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D3. The Trial Court after

considering both the oral an documentary evidence, convicted

the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 465, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of IPC and sentenced

for a period of one year for all the offences with fine of Rs.500/-

in all the offences. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial

Court, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in

Crl.A.No.401/2011. The Appellate Court also on reconsideration

of both the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court

and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition is

filed before the Court.

4. The counsel who is the Amicus Curiae in her

arguments vehemently contend that first of all the prosecution

has not proved the identified of the petitioner. Apart from that

KPSC has not proved the original documents which have been

relied while issuing an order of appointment. The prosecution

also not proved the impersonation and unless the guilt is proved,

the very conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as

well as confirming the said order by the Appellate Court is

erroneous. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of

PW2 who is the friend of PW1, PW3 who conducted the

investigation and also particularly relied upon the evidence of

PW5 who is the Principal of the Vijaya college who came before

the Court and identified the original PW1 and the material

collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the

impersonation hence, both the Courts have committed an error

in convicting the petitioner as well as confirming the same.

5. The Amicus Curiae also brought to notice of this

Court the observation made by the Trial Court particularly in

paragraph 17 wherein it is held that though there are some

inconsistencies which would not take the credible case of the

prosecution and hence, it is clear that there are inconsistencies

in the evidence of the prosecution inspite of the giving benefit of

doubt in favour of the petitioner herein, erroneously convicted

and sentenced against him. The counsel also brought to notice

of this Court the paragraph 8 wherein also an observation is

made that PW3 categorically admitted that as per the direction

of the Government, he has conducted the preliminary enquiry

regarding the bonafide of the accused. The counsel also brought

to notice of this Court the observation made that only after

ensuring that the bonafide of the accused is doubtful, hence, he

filed the complaint in terms of Ex.P10. Hence, it is only a

doubtful circumstances and not having any clear material that he

indulged in impersonation and made use of the tampered

document for getting the job. Hence, it requires interference of

this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State would submit that PW1-Sathyapalu has

been examined and his original marks cards are marked at Ex.P1

to P4 and he states that he got the job in SBI and he was the

student at Vijaya College in which he obtained the decree. The

counsel would submit that PW5 who is the Principal of the said

college categorically stated that PW1 is the student of Vijaya

college and he has studied in his college and this petitioner

never studied in Vijaya college and hence, the very contention of

the petitioner counsel is that there is no any identity of the

original Sathyapalu cannot be accepted. The counsel for the

State also brought notice of this Court to the evidence of PW10,

who is the hand writing expert, gave the opinion in terms of

Ex.P28 stating that Ex.P5 to P8 have been tampered and made

use of those documents for availing the job. The counsel for the

State also submits that PW6 who has issued the marks card

categorically says that when he issued the marks cards, those

were not tampered and subsequently, the said documents were

tampered by erasing the entries. Hence the evidence of PW1, 5,

6 and 10 are very clear that this petitioner impersonated himself

as Sathyapalu and obtained the documents and those

documents are made use of getting the job and both the Courts

have not committed any error in convicting the accused for the

aforesaid offences and there are no grounds to interfere with the

orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and the

revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

7. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the

points that would arise for the consideration are:

1. Whether the Trial Court has committed an error

in convicting this petitioner for the charges

leveled against him and also the Appellate

Court also committed an error in confirming the

same?

2. Whether this Court can invoke the revisional

jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the

orders passed by both the Courts are perverse

and the conviction as well as the confirmation

suffers from any illegality and its correctness?

3. What order?

8. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material on record it

discloses that the charges leveled against the petitioner is that

he has impersonated PW1 - Sathyapalu by forging the duplicate

marks cards belonging to PW1. It is also the contention of the

learned counsel for the State would submit that the charges

leveled against the petitioner is on the ground that knowing fully

well that those documents are not belongs to him, he made use

of the said documents as genuine documents for getting the job

as Inspector of the Department of Legal Metrology and in terms

of the direction given by the Government, the investigation is

conducted and at the earliest point of time, the complainant who

has been examined as PW3 enquired in the matter initially and

thereafter he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P10 and later

the matter was transferred to the COD, Bangalore and after

completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet.

9. With regard to the impersonation is concerned, the

prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1 and PW5.

PW1 who is Sathyapalu came before the Court and deposed that

COD police were told that his certificates were forged to the

same were used to get the job. It is also important to note that

PW5 who is the Principal of Vijaya college comes and deposes

that PW1 studied in the said college and his evidence is that this

petitioner never studied in the Vijaya college and it is not the

case of the petitioner also that he had studied in Vijaya college

but only his contention that earlier his name was

Aswathanarayana and subsequently, he got it changed his name

but in order to substantiate the said fact, he has not placed any

material before the Court. It is also important to note that the

case of the prosecution is that the documents were obtained

through PW6. PW6 also came and deposed before the Court that

he had issued the marks cards at Ex.P5 to P8 but when the

documents which have been issued, at that time, they were not

tampered and subsequently, they were tampered by using the

eraser. It is also important to note that regarding the tampering

of the documents is concerned, PW10, who is the hand writing

expert examined and he gave the report in terms of Ex.P28

stating that Ex.P5 to P8 were tampered documents. When such

being the case of the prosecution is that, the very contention of

the petitioner counsel that the identity is not proved cannot be

accepted.

10. The other contention is that the original documents

are not produced by the petitioner before the KPSC but the fact

that this petitioner had applied for the post of Inspector at

Department of Legal Metrology is not in dispute. When this

petitioner is not studied in Vijaya college as deposed by PW5, it

is also not the case that he is Sathyapalu. But his contention is

that he was Aswathanarayana but he got changed the name as

Sathyapalu and to evidence the said fact nothing is placed on

record. The fact that he was worked as Inspector in the

department of Legal Metrology at different places is also not in

dispute. PW3 who conducted the preliminary investigation also

clearly says that who sets the law in motion by filing the

complaint, categorically says that he was entrusted the work of

investigation in the year 2001 and at that time this petitioner

was working as Inspector in the department of Legal Metrology.

The allegation against this petitioner is that he relied upon the

degree marks cards and SSLC marks card are different but they

are not belonged to him. Not only that the date of birth also

rectified in that records of the accused which were produced at

the time of departmental examinations. It is also noticed by

PW3 that accused had given the address of Bidar office at the

time of departmental examinations, but he was never posted to

that place. In this regard also PW3 conducted a detail

preliminary investigation by visiting the schools and colleges

where the accused said to have been studied and after

confirming that testimonials produced by the accused are

fabricated one, he submitted the report to the higher officials

and thereafter he had filed the complaint as per Ex.P10. When

the doubt arises with regard to the genuineness of the

documents only, the complaint is filed in terms of Ex.P10.

11. The very contention of the petitioner counsel that

when the original documents are not produced by the KPSC, the

question of fabrication of the documents does not arise. PW3

deposed before the Court that the very Aswathanarayana had

handed over those documents at the time of enquiry and when

the documents are handed over by the petitioner himself during

the course of investigation, the contention of the counsel for the

petitioner that he has not indulged in impersonation and

cheating cannot be accepted. The very evidence of PW1, 5, 10

apart from that PW6 who had issued the subject matter of the

disputed documents, it is clear that there is a fabrication of the

documents and made use of those documents for getting the job

hence, the very contention of the petitioner counsel that the

guilt of the accused is not proved cannot be accepted as the

report given by PW10 after examining the documents stating

that in terms of Ex.P28, Ex.P5 to P8 were tampered and made

use of those documents while getting the job. When PW5 also

deposed that this petitioner never studied in Vijaya college and

only Satyapalu i.e., PW1 was studied in Vijaya college and those

documents are pertains to PW1. Hence, I do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court in convicting the petitioner herein

for the charges leveled against him.

12. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of

evidence available on record held with regard to the indulging of

the offence of impersonation and also tampering of the

documents and in paragraph 34 it is held that the petitioner was

examined as DW1 and except Ex.D1 to D3, the petitioner was

not relied upon any other documents and in his cross-

examination he has diened that Ex.D1 was got prepared by him

after changing his name as Sathyapal and he has admitted that

in the high school records, his name is shown as

Aswathnarayana only and he volunteered that it is a mistake

committed by the Head Master and he also denied that Ex.P5 to

P7 are tampered documents and in order to prove the fact that

he had studied in the particular college, the Investigating Officer

has not recorded the statement of his classmates and the staff.

PW2 stated that he is the friend of PW1 and they were studied at

Vijaya college, Bangalore and the same has been considered in

detail by the Appellate Court in re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary evidence particularly in paragraph 36. Hence, I do

not find any error in appreciation of both the oral and

documentary evidence by the Trial Court and also the Appellate

Court. No doubt, this Court can exercise the revisional

jurisdiction when the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court is perverse and capricious and not considered

the cogent evidence available on record. In the case of hand, I

do not find any such circumstances to interfere with the orders

of both the Courts as both the Courts have relied upon the

evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e, PW1, 5, 6 and 10

regarding impersonation as well as making use of the documents

which have been tampered in getting the job. This Court can

exercise the revisional jurisdiction if the order of the Trial Court

as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any illegality and its

correctness and such circumstances is not warranted in the case

on hand and hence, I do not find any grounds to invoke Section

397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C to comes to the conclusion

that the orders passed by both the Courts are suffering from any

illegality and its correctness hence, the very contention of the

counsel for the petitioner is that the identity is not proved, the

original documents are not produced by KPSC and impersonation

is not proved cannot be accepted and the other contention is

that the guilt has not been proved also cannot be accepted.

Hence, Points No.1 and 2 are answered as Negative.

13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

The Counsel Smt. Sohani Holla, who had been appointed

as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, submits that her

services may be rendered as ProBono services. To that effect,

she will file a memo. The said submission is accepted and no

order has been passed with regard to payment of amicus curiae

fee.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN