The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.U.Devaraj Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4106 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.86/2021

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.                     ...PETITIONER

              (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
AND:

SRI U.DEVARAJ KUMAR
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT SHAILA HOUSE
UCHILA BADA VILLAGE
MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE
UDUPI TALUK-576107.                       ...RESPONDENT

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED
IN CRL. APPEAL NO.31/2017 (COMMON JUDGMENT 166/2016,
175/2016, 176/2016, 17/2017, 27/2017, 31/2017 AND
67/2017) PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU THEREBY
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.120/2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, DK THERE BY
                                 2



ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 120(B) R/W. SECTION 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.120/2016.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges

examined the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PWs-1 to 9

and also relied upon documents, Exs.P1 to P16. On the other

hand, the respondent has not led any evidence before the Trial

Court but only got marked the document 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 detail discussion of the evidence available on record.

Even the Appellate Court has also reached at a wrong

conclusion, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. She would

further submit 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.42 of its judgment observed that there is lot of

variances, contradictions, omissions, lapses, discrepancies found

in the oral evidence which is not in consonance with the

documentary evidence placed by the prosecution. Further, it is

observed that in the absence of the requisite documentary proof,

the other documentary evidence placed by the prosecution does

not help the case of the prosecution, so as to bring home the

guilt of the accused in respect of the offences alleged against

him. Apart from that, it has come to a conclusion that there are

many unexplained facts and circumstances and hence, on the

basis of the available materials, the criminal liability could not be

fixed on the accused and thereby the personal liberty of the

accused could not be infringed. The prosecution has not proved

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 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 Aeronautical

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 detailed discussion of each and every evidence of the

witnesses had arrived at a conclusion that there is lot of

variances, contradictions, omissions, lapses, discrepancies found

in the oral evidence which is not in consonance with the

documentary evidence placed by the prosecution and 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 material on

record 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, detailed 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

ST