Karnataka High Court
Ramanji vs The State By Bagepalli Ps on 3 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13628
CRL.RP No. 984 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 984 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2015
IN CRL.R.P. NO.984/2015
BETWEEN:
ALLABAKASH,
S/O MOULA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARGANUKUNTE VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK - 563 125,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI P.S.,
REP BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL.
C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BAGEPALLI IN C.C.NO.285/2012 AND THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13628
CRL.RP No. 984 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2015
ORDER DATED 25.4.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., CHIKKABALLAPUR IN CRL.A.NO.44/2014.
IN CRL.R.P. NO.1218/2015
BETWEEN:
RAMANJI,
S/O BAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARGANUKUNTE VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAKESH RAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI P.S.,
REP BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2014 IN
C.C.NO.285/2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BAGEPALLI AND THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2015 IN
CRL.A.NO.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND S.J., CHIKKABALLAPURA.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13628
CRL.RP No. 984 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2015
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 who are convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 4(1) 4(1A)
read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation)Act, 1984 are before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.10.2011 at about
7:30 p.m., P.W.1/ Deputy Tahasildar of Bagepalli received a credible
information that some persons were unauthorizedly loading the sand on
the tractor. On receiving the credible information, P.W.1 along with
P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 conducted a raid, and it was uncovered that, accused
No.1, who was the driver of the tractor was loading sand from the
Government land. Accused No.2 was implicated solely on the ground
that the tractor trailer in which accused No.1 loaded the sand belongs to
him.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 17
and got marked the exhibits at Ex.P1 to P18A. The Trial Court after
appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the
judgment of conviction which was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Against which, the present revision petitions are filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
NC: 2024:KHC:13628
5. Ex.P8 is the spot mahazar for seizing the tractor and trailer
along with the loaded sand. The witnesses to the mahazar namely
P.Ws.4 and 5 have turned hostile. However, P.W.17/Investigating Officer
in his examination-in-chief has stated that the tractor trailer loaded with
sand was seized in presence of two independent witnesses and nothing
was elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement. The
statement of the Investigating Officer is trustworthy and it cannot be
merely discredited only because two independent witnesses have turned
hostile. The prosecution has established that accused No.1 committed
theft of sand from the Government property, which constitute an offence
under Section 379 of IPC. However, insofar accused No.2/owner of the
tractor trailer, there is no evidence to establish that accused No.2
connived with accused No.1 or instigated accused No.1 to commit theft
of sand belonging to the Government. Therefore, the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of accused No.2.
6. The crime is of the year 2011. The offence under Section
379 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or
with fine or with both. After long passage of time, if the petitioner is
sentenced to undergo imprisonment, he will be put to untold hardship
and so also his family members who are dependent on the petitioner for
their livelihood, and it would be appropriate to sentence the
petitioner/accused No.1 to pay fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition No.984/2015 is
allowed and criminal revision petition No.1218/2015 is
allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Principal Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:13628
Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli in C.C.No.285/2012 confirmed
by the judgment dated 25.04.2015 passed by the 1st Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in
Crl.A.No.44/2014 insofar as accused No.2 is hereby set
aside and accused No.2 is acquitted of the aforesaid
offences.
iii. Insofar accused No.1, the order dated
03.07.2014 sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period to two years is hereby set aside.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- in addition to Rs.2,000/- which is already
deposited by petitioner/accused No.1 before the Trial Court,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. In default, the petitioner shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
iv. Bail bonds, if any executed by accused No.2,
stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
