Karnataka High Court
Pokar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P.NO.466/2015
BETWEEN:
POKAR
S/O KHADAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7TH HOSKOTE VILLAGE
SUNTICOPPA HOBLI
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 233. ...PETITIONER
(BY MRS. BHANUPRIYA, ADV., FOR
SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADV.)
Digitally signed
by B A KRISHNA
KUMAR
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIKERI TOWN POLICE
KODAGU, PIN - 571 201
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KODAGU AT
MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.1325/2006 VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED
7.3.2014 AND CRL.A NO.48/2007 VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED
7.6.2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KODAGU AT MADIKERI.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed by the sole
accused in C.C.No.1325/2006 challenging the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2007 passed
by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC,
Madikeri, (for short the 'Trial Court') which has been
confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.48/2007 by the I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri
(for short, the 'Appellate Court') vide judgment and order
dated 07.03.2014.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -
State.
3. Brief facts of the case are, accused-petitioner
herein stood as a surety for accused no.2-Sulaiman in
C.C.No.1642/2004 which was pending before the Principal
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Madikeri, impersonating one K
M Latheef and also had produced the RTC extracts of the
lands belonging to the said K M Latheef before the Court.
Since accused no.2 -Sulaiman had remained absent in
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
C.C.No.1642/2004, non-bailable warrant was issued against
him, and thereafter notice to the surety was also issued.
Upon service of notice, surety K M Latheef appeared before
the Trial Court and brought to the notice of the learned
Magistrate that he had never stood as surety to accused
no.2 - Sulaiman and he identified the photograph affixed to
the surety affidavit as of the petitioner herein. Therefore, a
complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 418 & 419 IPC and after
investigation, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences
against the petitioner and the case was registered in
C.C.No.1095/2006. In the said proceedings, the petitioner
was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
418 and 419 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the
alleged offences. The said judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Court was affirmed by the
Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.48/2007 and it is in this
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
background, the petitioner has approached this Court in
this criminal revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had also stood as surety in favour of accused
no.3 - Nazeer in the very same criminal proceedings i.e. in
C.C.No.1642/2004 and since accused no.3 - Nazeer had
remained absent before the Courts below and surety bond
was cancelled and when notice was issued to surety they
found that the petitioner had impersonated one Hassainar
and stood as surety in his name in favour of accused no.3 -
Nazeer. A criminal case was therefore registered against him
and he was tried for the offences punishable under Section
418 and 419 of IPC in C.C.No.1095/2006 and even in the
said proceedings the Trial Court had found the petitioner
guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under
Section 418 and 419 of IPC and imposed him similar
sentence as imposed in the present case. He submits that as
against the said judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, the petitioner herein had approached this Court in
Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 which was partly allowed by this Court
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was
modified. He accordingly, prays to dispose of this revision
petition in terms of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015
by reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent - State submit that the petitioner had stood
surety for two different accused in C.C.No.1642/2004
impersonating two different persons namely Hassainar and
K M Latheef. The petitioner appears to be habitual offender
and therefore, no leniency is required to be shown to him.
6. I have carefully considered the rival arguments
addressed by both the parties and also perused the entire
material on record.
7. The petitioner had stood surety to accused Nos.2
and 3 in C.C.No.1642/2004 impersonating himself as K M
Latheef and Hassainar and had filed two separate surety
affidavits in the very same proceedings. The documents
relating to property of the aforesaid K M Latheef and
Hassinar was produced by him before the learned Magistrate
in C.C.No.1642/2004 whereas his photograph was affixed in
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
the surety affidavit. This Court in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 on
the very same set of facts wherein the petitioner had stood
as surety to accused no.3 - Nazeer in C.C.No.1642/2004
impersonating one Hassainar who was examined as PW.3 in
the said case proceedings, had partly allowed the said
petition by upholding the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Courts below and modified and sentence
imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the
considered view that in order to maintain parity even in the
present case, the order of sentence imposed by the Courts
below against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Section 418 and 419 of IPC is required to be modified
in terms of order passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015.
Accordingly, I pass the following :-
::ORDER::
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part
and disposed of in terms of order passed in
Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 dated 19.03.2021.
The judgment and order of conviction
passed in C.C.No.1325/2006 against the
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
petitioner convicting him for the offences
punishable under Section 418 and 419 of IPC
which has been affirmed in Crl.A.No.48/2007 by
the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated
07.03.2014 is upheld.
However, the order of sentence imposed on
the petitioner is modified in terms of modified
sentence passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 and the
accused -petitioner is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months
for the offence punishable under Section 418 IPC
and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months. Similarly, for the offence
punishable under Section 419 IPC, the accused-
petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months.
CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015
It is ordered that the sentence imposed for
both the offences shall run concurrently and the
accused shall be entitled for set off under Section
428 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
