State Of Karnataka vs Sri.U.Devaraj Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4785 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.97/2021

BETWEEN:

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-576 107.                           ... RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.175/2016 (COMMON JUDGMENT 166/2016,
175/2016, 176/2016, 17/2017, 27/2017, 31/2017, 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.124/2016
PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM, MANGALURU, DK., THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR
                                 2



THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420 AND
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) read with Section 34 of IPC. Based on the complaint, a

case has been registered in C.C.No.124/2016.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges

examined the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.W.1 to P.W.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 High Court Government Pleader 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 IPC 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 High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the

learned counsel for the 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 pursued 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 from 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) read with 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

MD