Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramaswamy vs The State By Gownipalli Police on 25 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
CRL.RP No. 1332 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1331 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1332 OF 2015
C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1331 OF 2015
IN CRL.RP No.1332/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAMASWAMY
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATARAYANAKOTE VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 123.
2. SRI. GHOUSE PASHA
S/O C.H. ANWAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD,
CHINTAMANI TOWN-563 125,
Digitally
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
signed by ...PETITIONERS
MALATESH (BY SRI VIVEK ALONGWITH LIKITHA .M, FOR
KC
SRI DEEPAK J, ADVOCATES)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE BY GOWNIPALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALDORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
CRL.RP No. 1332 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1331 of 2015
CONVICTION DATED 03.10.2015 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.83/2013 ON THE FILE OF TE PRL. DIST. AND S.J.,
KOLAR AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 20.07.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.83/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPUR.
IN CRL.RP No.1331/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAMASWAMY
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATARAYANAKOTE VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 123
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. GHOUSE PASHA
S/O C.H. ANWAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD,
CHINTAMANI TOWN-563 125,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEK AND LIKITHA, FOR SRI DEEPAK.J, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY GOWNIPALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALDORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION DATED 03.10.2015 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.82/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. S.J., KOLAR AND
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
CRL.RP No. 1332 of 2015
C/W CRL.RP No. 1331 of 2015
30.07.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.84/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPUR.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Likhita, for Sri Rakshit, Advocates and Sri
Vivek for Sri Deepak, advocates for revision petitioners and Sri
Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. In these two revision petitions, revision petitioners are
accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Trial Magistrate who
suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under
Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction
order was passed after due trial following all necessary
procedure.
3. The stolen articles, viz., sewing machine and gas
cylinders were recovered. The conviction order was appealed by
the revision petitioners before the First Appellate Court wherein
the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court on re-appreciation
of the material on record, confirmed the order of conviction as
well as the order of sentence.
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons
are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petitions submitted that in
the event of this Court maintaining the order of conviction,
taking note of the fact that the incident has occurred in the
year 2009 and revision petitioners thereafter have led a
peaceful and normal life without indulging in any other criminal
activities and there are no criminal antecedents insofar as
accused persons earlier to 2009, this Court may consider the
period of custody undergone by them as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the revision grounds including alternative submission
made on behalf of the revision petitioners.
7. Perused the material on record in the light of the rival
contents of the parties.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal
clear that the material available on record are sufficient enough
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
to maintain the order of conviction, inasmuch as stolen articles
were recovered from the custody of accused and there was no
suitable explanation by them.
9. Accordingly, conviction needs no interference in these two
revision petitions.
10. Coming to the question of sentence, it is seen that
learned Trial Magistrate has awarded imprisonment for three
years which was modified to one year by the learned Judge in
the first appellate Court.
11. Taking note of the fact that accused persons are in their
advanced age and there are no criminal antecedents earlier to
2009. Subsequent to 2009 also there are no criminal
complaints against revision petitioners. They were in custody
for two months twenty days. As such, treating the period of
custody as imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount would
meet the ends of justice, having regard to the attendant facts
and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
ORDER
(i) Revision petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the order of conviction of the
accused/revision petitioners for the offence
punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the
Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment
ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate modified
by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
is further modified directing that the custody
period already undergone by the revision
petitioners for a period of two months twenty
days is treated as the period of imprisonment for
the aforesaid offences, by enhancing the fine
amount to Rs.20,000/- to each of the accused in
each of the cases.
(iii) In other words each of the accused persons are
to pay Rs.40,000/- as fine in respect of both
cases, inclusive of the fine amount already
imposed by the learned trial Magistrate
confirmed by the learned Judge in the first
appellate Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:29734
(iv) Time is granted till 15th August 2024 to pay the
fine amount.
(v) If the revision petitioners fail to make payment
of the fine amount as modified by this Court, the
sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate
modified by the first Appellate Court stands
automatically restored.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
