Karnataka High Court
Sri C Krishnappa vs The Registrar on 2 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
CRL.RP No. 1036 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1036 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI C KRISHNAPPA
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI CHELUVAIAH
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.229
7TH MAIN, II CROSS, KATREGUPPE
BANGALORE-560 043
PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT NO.77
4TH CROSS, CHENNAMMA LAYOUT
BEHIND AYYAPPA TEMPLE
NEAR VIDYA PEETHA
BANGALORE-560 028
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally THE REGISTRAR
signed by R CITY CIVIL COURT
MANJUNATHA BANGALORE-560 001
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI B.S.VENKATA NARAYANAN FOR SRI MADHUKAR M.
KARNATAKA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED
IN CRL.A.NO.627/2019 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE LVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH-59) AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
26.02.2019 IN C.C.NO.17146/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
CRL.RP No. 1036 of 2021
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Chandrashekara K, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri B.S.Venkata Narayana, learned Counsel for
the respondent.
2. Revision Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order
of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 193
and 205 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.17146/2013 dated
26.02.2019 on the file of the I Addl. CMM, Bengaluru confirmed
in Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2019 dated 10.08.2021 on the file
of the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
3. At the outset Sri Chandrashekara, learned Counsel for the
petitioner contended that in the event of this Court upholding
the conviction, taking note of the fact that, the institution
where under school was run has been closed on and from 2011
lenient view may be taken insofar as imprisonment period is
concerned, by enhancing reasonable amount of fine.
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
4. Sri B.S.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing
the respondent, however, submits that in a matter of this
nature, showing leniency or mercy would send a wrong
message to the Society and such persons must be dealt with
stern hands and, sought for dismissal of the petition in toto.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, facts which
are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition unfold
as under:
Revision petitioner along with his mother had approached
City Civil Court in O.S No.1672/2000 in respect of the premises
bearing No.11/56, New No.1010, Corporation Division, 3rd
Cross, 2nd Main, II Phase, Srinivasanagar, Bengaluru, by filing
suit for possession.
6. Accused Nos.1 and 2 together joined their hands and
obtained a compromise decree by utter collusion and in the
Execution case No.2044/2000 without obtaining the possession
of the property whereunder students, teachers, staff of M/s
Nirmala Education Society were thrown out of the said school.
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
7. While so obtaining the compromise decree, intentionally
accused persons have suppressed the injunction order obtained
by M/s Nirmala Education Society, in O.S No.4687/1999.
8. Resultantly, criminal action was initiated against the
revision petitioner and his mother.
9. After thorough investigation, police filed charge sheet in
the said case which was tried in C.C No.17146/2013.
10. After due trial, learn trial Magistrate found materials on
record majority of which are documentary in nature, concluded
that accused are guilty of offence punishable under Sections
193 and 205 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Mother of the present revision Petitioner died during
pendency of the criminal proceedings and therefore criminal
case stood abated insofar as mother of the accused is
concerned.
12. Present revision petitioner being accused No.2 in C.C
No.17146/2013 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for 2(two) years for the offence punishable under Section 193
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in respect of
offence punishable under Section 205 of IPC, petitioner was
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and both sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
13. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner in Criminal Appeal
No.627/2019 questioning the validity of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence came to be dismissed.
14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only
concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Trial
Magistrate, but also supplemented additional reasons for
maintaining conviction by judgment dated 10th August 2021.
15. Having perused the judgment of the learned Trial
Magistrate as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate
Court in the light of the grounds urged in the revision petition,
this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the
impugned order of conviction.
16. This would take us to the alternative submission made by
learned Counsel for the petitioner as referred to supra.
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
17. Taking note of the fact that accused No.2/revision
petitioner is now aged 64 years and is working as an assistant
in a cloth shop to eke out his livelihood, directing accused No.2
to undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate would work out harsh, having regard to the nature
of the offence alleged against him for which he has been
convicted.
18. As such, directing the revision petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of
the fine already imposed by the learned trial Magistrate
confirmed by the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court
would meet the ends of justice, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. More so, property whereunder school was
run by name M/s Nirmala Education Society is closed in the
year 2011 itself.
19. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:24810
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 193 and 205 of the Indian Penal Code,
order of sentence passed by the learned trial
Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court is modified directing the
accused No.2/revision Petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for a DAY till rising of the
Court and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of
the fine amount already imposed by the Learned
Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge
in the First Appellate Court, failing which,
revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
(iii) Office is directed to return the trial Court records
with copy of this order, forthwith.
(iv) Time is granted till 20th July 2024 to pay fine
amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
