Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44414
CRL.RP No. 788 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 788 OF 2016
Between:
1. Sri M.Nagesh
S/o Late Mudappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No. 98, "Rajnivas"
4th Cross, New Byappanahalli,
Bengaluru-560093.
2. Sri Ramakrishna
S/o Chennappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No. 18, A.Narayanapura,
Dooravaninagar Post,
Bengaluru-560016.
Digitally signed by
VEERENDRA ...Petitioners
KUMAR K M (By Sri Mohan Kumar D., Advocate)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
And:
The State of Karnataka
Cubbon Park Police Station,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560001.
...Respondent
(By Smt. Waheeda M.M., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44414
CRL.RP No. 788 of 2016
This Crl.RP is filed u/s.397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to
set aside the impugned judgment order dated 27.01.2016 in
Crl.A.No.114/2010 passed by the Hon'ble LI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-52), and thereby also set
aside the judgment and sentence dated 12.01.2010/
18.01.2010 passed in C.C.No.2860/2009 by the VIII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru and acquit the petitioners.
This Crl.RP, coming on for hearing, this day, order was
made therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Mohan Kumar D, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State.
2. Sri. Mohan Kumar after addressing the arguments
on merits of the matter, made an alternative submission
that in the event of this court upholding the impugned
orders, taking note of the fact that revision petitioners are
now retired from services and are solely dependent on the
pensionary benefits and the entire family is dependent on
them and at this distance of time if they are ordered to
undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Magistrate,
confirmed by the First Appellate Court they would be put
to untold hardship. Therefore this Court may exercise its
NC: 2024:KHC:44414
discretion and enhance the fine amount and set aside the
imprisonment period.
3. Per Contra, Smt. Waheeda, learned High Court
Government Pleader opposes the said alternate
submission of the counsel for the revision petitioners on
the ground that very rarely an offence of this nature
stands proved before the court; even in such cases, if this
court takes a lenient view and allow the accused persons
go scot free, the same would send a wrong message to
the Society and unscrupulous elements like revision
petitioners would get encouraged in indulging in such
activities and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision
petition in toto.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and this court perused the materials on record
meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record,
since all ingredients to attract the offences alleged against
the accused under section 468, 472 and 473 IPC, having
been successfully established by the prosecution,
NC: 2024:KHC:44414
recording of order of conviction against the revision
petitioners, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs
no interference by this court.
5. But taking note of the fact that both the revision
petitioners are now retired from the service and the entire
family is now dependent on their income, this court is of
the considered opinion that at this distance of time if the
accused persons are directed to undergo imprisonment as
ordered by the Trial Magistrate, the same would be harsh
against the accused.
6. Accused are also now aged 64 and 60 years
respectively, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.25,000/- and custody period already undergone by
them which is more than six months be treated as period
of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences would meet the
ends of justice. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
Revision Petition is allowed in part while
maintaining the conviction of the accused for
NC: 2024:KHC:44414
the offences punishable under sections 468, 472
and 473 IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate
Court is hereby modified as under:
The custody period already undergone by
the revision petitioners is treated as period of
imprisonment and ordered to pay enhanced fine
amount of Rs.25,000/- each for the aforesaid
offences on or before 31.12.2024, failing which
the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial
Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate
Court stands restored automatically.
Office is directed to return the trial court
records along with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SD
