Karnataka High Court
K C Mohammad Ali vs State By Psi on 20 June, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 419 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. K C MOHAMMAD ALI
S/O ABDULKUNJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O SANNAMOOLE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK,
MANGALORE DISTRICT - 574 239.
2. SURESHA
S/O KRISHNA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/O B M ROAD, KOGRA
KOPPA TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 139.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARISH B SHIRALAKOPPA, ADVOCATE
SRI. PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY PSI
Digitally signed BELTHANDAGI POLICE
by N UMA
MANGALORE DISTRICT - 574 239.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.1.2010 PASSED
BY THE C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., BELTHANGADI, D.K. IN
C.C.NO.873/2001 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 31.3.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.6/2010.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 12.01.2010 in C.C.No.873/2001 on the
file of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and J.M.F.C,
Belthangady, D.K and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 31.03.2015 in Crl.A.No.6/2010 on the file of the Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, has filed this
revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners /
accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 before the
Trial Court and appellant before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, Maruthi car
bearing No.KA.19-M-2452 said to have belonged to Assistant
Conservative of Forest, who is examined as PW.1. It is his case
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
that, on 26.01.1998 at about 4.00 a.m., he had parked and
locked his car in the garage at Laila Village, Ujire. However, on
27.01.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., he found that his car was
missing. A complaint came to be lodged before the
jurisdictional police. The police have registered a case in Crime
No.1/1998 on 27.01.1998 for the offence punishable under
Section 397 of the Indian Penal code (for short 'IPC'). The
police have conducted the investigation and submitted the
charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined, in all, eight witnesses namely PWs.1 to
8 and got marked Exhibits P1 to 13. The Trial Court after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the
Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered
by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the
concurrent findings.
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
5. Heard Shri Harish B.Shiralakoppa, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the concurrent findings recorded for conviction
by the Courts below requires to be set aside, as the same is
opposed to the facts and law.
7. It is further submitted that, the petitioners alleged
to have involved in the theft of sandalwood and it is further
alleged that, the alleged stolen car was used for transporting
the sandalwood pieces. On credible information having been
received by the jurisdictional forest officials, the forest officials
intercepted the vehicle and also arrested three persons. One
person in the car escaped from the clutches. A case came to
be registered by the forest officials in FOC No.186/1997-98
under the Forest Act.
8. The said case ended in acquittal against these
petitioners. The official witness, who were stated to be the
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
mahazar witnesses to the said incident, even though, they have
supported the case of the prosecution, however, failed to
establish or prove that the petitioners were transporting
sandalwood in the said car. Obviously, there is no independent
mahazar conducted for theft of the car or no independent
witnesses have been examined in respect of alleged theft. In
spite of acquittal order passed by the Trial Court in respect of
the alleged transportation of sandalwood pieces in the said car,
the conviction in respect of theft of the Maruthi car is
unsustainable and the petitioners ought not to have been
convicted for the said offences. The learned counsel for the
petitioners highlighting the said error committed by the Courts
below prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP justifying the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below in convicting the
petitioners submitted that, the Trial Court after appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence on record, arrived at a
conclusion that these petitioners have committed theft of the
car. The engine number, chasis number followed with the RC
book of the car proved that the car belongs to PW.1. PW.1 has
lodged a complaint soon after the incident, thereafter, the car
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
was intercepted by the forest officials, on receiving the credible
information regarding the transportation of sandalwood pieces
in the said car. During inquiry, they came to know that the car
was stolen by the petitioners. The prosecution has proved the
case of theft of the said car, however, the Trial Court, in theft
of sandalwood pieces, acquitted the petitioners. Since the theft
of car has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and there
is no occasion for the Revisional Court to interfere with the
concurrent findings as it does not warranted. Having submitted
thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties. After going through the concurrent findings
recorded for conviction by the Courts below, it appears that,
the car which was used for transporting the sandalwood pieces
was seized at the instance of forest officials. No doubt, the
Trial Court in paragraph No.26 of the judgment mentioned that
sandalwood case registered against the petitioners for theft has
ended in acquittal. If the said acquittal has been recorded by
the Courts on the same seizure mahazar, the Trial Court should
have extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioners in respect
of theft of the car. The error committed by the Courts below in
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
recording the conviction on the same seizure mahazar, appears
to be erroneous and requires to be set aside. These aspects
have been ignored by both the Courts. Hence, the impugned
judgments require to be set aside. It is needless to say that,
there is no independent witness examined in respect of seizure
of the car allegedly intercepted forest officials.
11. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, dated 12.01.2010 passed in C.C.No.
873/2001 by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and
J.M.F.C, Belthangady, D.K and judgment and
order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Crl.A.
No.6/2010 by the Court of Principal Sessions
Judge, D.K., Mangaluru , are set aside.
NC: 2023:KHC:21372
CRL.RP No. 419 of 2015
(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offence
under Section 379 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
