Sri.G.A.Ramakrishna vs State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 5272 Kant

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.799/2013

BETWEEN

SRI G A RAMAKRISHNA
S/O A G IYYANNA
NOW AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
YADAVA CAST
R/O ARMS GUARD
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
MOLAKALMURU
PERMANENT R/O
BELLARY TOWN
TEMPORARILY R/AT
TILAK NAGAR
MOLAKALMURU-577535
                                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SRINIVAS N, ADVOCATE)

AND


STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MOLAKALMURU POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535

                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
                               2



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.01.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MOLAKALMUR IN C.C.NO.154/2007 AND ETC.

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


                         ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the

petitioner/accused was working as an armed guard at State

Bank of Mysore, Molakalmuru branch. The Manager at the

time was one K.Krishnamurthy. It was alleged that without

the knowledge of the Manager, the petitioner pilfered two

demand draft leaves bearing Nos.067197 and 067636 from

the DD book, used the seal of the bank and forged the

signature of the Manager to encash them at the later point of

time.Hence,the petitioner had encashed one DD for

Rs.47,000/- through his relative one Smt. Lakshmi Yadav at

SBI, Kuddapah branch on 19.05.2004 and another DD for

Rs.40,000/- at SBI, Bellary branch on 24.11.2004. The police

held the investigation and filed charge-sheet for the offences

punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 468 of IPC.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the charges,

relied upon the evidences of PW1 to PW12 and documents at

Ex.P1 to P35. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence

after recording the 313 statement. The Trial Court after

considering both the oral and documentary evidence,

convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 420 and 468 of IPC for a period of three years and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each offences. Being

aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal was

preferred in Crl.A.No.13/2013 and the Appellate Court also on

re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence,

confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial

Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that there was a delay in lodging

the complaint and according to the prosecution DD's were

dated 19.05.2004 and 24.11.2004 and the complaint was filed

on 25.10.2005 and PW1 and PW2 have not lodged the

complaint being the Manager and Assistant Manager of the

bank. But the case is that this petitioner forged the signature

of PW2. The other witnesses were the panch witnesses i.e,

PW3 to PW5 in respect of Ex.P6. PW6 is the panch witness in

respect of Ex.P2. PW7 is a cashier in the said bank, PW8 is

the hand writing expert, PW9 to 11 are the Investigating

Officers who are conducted the investigation. PW12 is the

relative of the petitioner in whose favour the DD was

generated, but she was turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that there are material contradictions in the evidences of the

prosecution. Hence, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court have failed to consider the material available on record

and passed the perverse order and it requires interference of

this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that except

PW12 who turned hostile, the other witnesses have supported

the case of the prosecution. The counsel would submit that

the DDs were generated in favour of PW12 itself but she had

not supported the case of the prosecution. The both oral and

documentary evidence placed before the Court i.e., the

evidences of PW1 to PW11 and documents at Ex.P1 to P35

clearly disclose with regard to the very involvement of this

petitioner in forging the signature of the bank Manager and

generation of the DDs in favour of PW12. Hence, both the

Courts have considered the material on record and not

committed any error in convicting and sentencing the

petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Hence, it is not a fit case

to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of both the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the points that

would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in

convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC and whether

the Appellate Court committed an error in re-appreciating the

material available on record and erroneously confirmed the

order of the Trial Court?

(2) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to

invoke revisional jurisdiction to reverse the orders of both the

Courts?

(3) What order?

Points No.1 and 2:

7. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of both the oral and

documentary evidence available on record it disclose that the

allegation made against the petitioner before the Trial Court is

that the petitioner by forging the signature of the bank

Manager generated the DDs in favour of PW12 hence, thereby

cheated the institution in which he was working. The Trial

Court considered the evidence of PW1 to PW12 out of that no

doubt, PW1 to PW4 are the bank Managers, Assistant

Managers and also the cashier and particularly, PW2 is the

witness, whose signature has been forged by the petitioner.

Hence, after considering both the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, convicted the petitioner for the

aforesaid offences. The prosecution mainly relied upon the

evidence of these witnesses and apart from that the evidence

of PW8 who has given the opinion that signature found on the

DDs were not that of the person who was authorised to sign

the DD but also gave a definite opinion that the signature

found on the DDs were tallied with the hand writing of the

petitioner. Hence, there is a case of forgery and also cheated

the institution in which the petitioner was working as armed

guard. The fact is that the officials who have been examined

before the Trial Court are the officers of the said bank and

mainly the prosecution relies upon both the oral and

documentary evidence available on record and it is also not in

dispute that when the forgery committed by the petitioner and

when the said fact came to the notice of the bank, the

petitioner made part payment to the tune of Rs.1,00,579/-

towards the misusing of the DDs. Hence, it is clear that the

petitioner admitted his guilt and repaid the amount which he

had misused the DDs of the said bank. The said fact is also

not disputed by the petitioner. When such being the material

available on record, it is not a fit case to reverse the finding of

the Trial Court and both the Courts have taken the note of the

evidences of the prosecution witnesses and came to the

conclusion that this petitioner had committed the offence of

forgery and cheating the bank in which he was working. The

Appellate Court also in paragraph 10 having re-analysed the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion

that the complaint was filed a year after i.e., after coming to

the notice of the bank that DDs were misused and the

witnesses have deposed that they are able to notice the

forgery committed by the petitioner. PW2 also submits in his

evidence that the signatures found in the DDs were not

belongs to him and the same are forged one. The fact that

these two DDs were encashed at Kadapah and Bellary and the

same also has been proved. The said fact is also observed in

paragraph 10 of the order of the Appellate Court. The

Appellate Court taken note of the evidences available on

record and came to the conclusion that nothing is elicited from

the mouth of the prosecution witnesses to disbelieve the case

of the prosecution. Apart from that the Appellate Court also

taken note of the evidence of PW8 who deposed with regard

to the forgery of the signature and gave the opinion that the

signature found on the DDs are not that of the person who

was authorised to sign the DD but also gave a definite opinion

that the signature on the DDs was tallied with the hand

writing of the petitioner. The Appellate Court also observed

that the hand writing experts opinion is not conclusive proof

but also taken note of the evidence of other witnesses and

also taken note of the repayment made by the petitioner

towards the misusing of the DD and when the petitioner itself

admitted his guilt, gave the finding that the Trial Court has

not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and

468 of IPC . No doubt, the counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that there was a delay in lodging the

complaint and according to the prosecution the date of the

DD's were 19.05.2004 and 24.11.2004 and the complaint was

filed on 25.10.2005 i.e., after a year, the same is not in

dispute. In this regard, the prosecution examined PW1 who is

the Manager of the Bank who gave the complaint and PW2

whose signature has been forged have been deposed

specifically before the Court that the signatures found in DDs

are not belonged to PW2 and apart from that PW8 who is the

hand writing expert also gave the opinion that the signatures

found in the DDs are tallied with the hand writing of the

petitioner. When such being the material available on record,

the contention of the petitioner counsel that both the Courts

have committed an error in convicting the petitioner cannot

be accepted. Hence, I do not find any error committed by

both the Courts in convicting the petitioner by the Trial Court

and confirming the said order by the Appellate Court. Hence,

it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to

reverse the orders of both the Courts. This Court can exercise

the revisional jurisdiction when this Court find any perversity

in passing the order by both the Courts and if any illegality is

found in the matter. In the case on hand, no such perversity

or illegality are found in the orders of both the Courts. Hence,

I answer points No.1 and 2 as negative.

8. Now, coming to the sentence part, the Trial Court

convicted the petitioner for a period of three years for the

offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC and

also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each for both the offences. It

has to be noted that when charge sheet was filed i.e., in the

year 2005, the petitioner was aged about 50 years and in the

revision petition, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 57

years and almost he is aged about 66 years i.e., almost two

decades has been lapsed. The counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner is not keeping good health as

he is suffering from paralysis. The fact is that, immediately

after coming to know about the forgery and misusing of the

DDs, the petitioner made the payment of Rs.1,00,579/-

thereby he admitted his guilt. When such being the factual

aspects of the case, after almost two decades has been lapsed

sending him for undergo sentence for a period of three years

appears to be not commensurate with the allegation and

admittedly he had repaid the amount of Rs.1,00,579/-. Having

considered the said fact and also that the incident is of the

year 2004 as well as the age of the petitioner, it is appropriate

to reduce the sentence from three years to 1½ years. The

payment of fine is concerned, the Trial Court imposed only

fine of Rs.5,000/- each and the offence is also in the nature of

forgery and cheating against the bank in which he was

working and hence, no need to alter the fine amount.

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

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment of

conviction is reduced to 1½ years from 3 years and the fine

amount is unaltered for both the offences and sentences shall

run concurrently.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN