Karnataka High Court
K P Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
CRL.RP No. 949 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 949 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
K.P. MANJUNATH,
S/O KADERA PRAKASHAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O THYAVANGE, TALUK CHANNAGIRI,
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI KAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARGAL POLICE STATION,
TQ: SAGAR, DT: SHIVAMOGGA - 585 323,
THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
Digitally
signed by ...RESPONDENT
MALATESH (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)
KC
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 & 401 OF CR.P.C
Location:
HIGH PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.05.2016
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., SHIVAMOGGA
SITTING AT SAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.29/2010 AND JUDGMENT
DATED 31.03.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. (SR. DN.) AND
J.M.F.C., AT SAGAR IN C.C.NO.131/2006 AND ACQUIT THE
PETR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
CRL.RP No. 949 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Preeti Kareddy, learned counsel
appeanring on behalf of Sri.Basavaraj Kareddy, learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M.,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
State/respondent.
2. Accused No.1/revision petitioner who suffered
an order of conviction in CC No.131/2006 on the file of
Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Sagara for
the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468 of
IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year for each of
the offences under Section 420 and 468 of IPC and for a
period of six months for the offence under Section 465 of
IPC and ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.3,000/-,
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively which was
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
confirmed in Crl.A.No.29/2010 on the file of V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar,
has preferred this revision petition.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision
petition are as under:
3.1. A charge sheet came to be filed by Kargal Police
based on the complaint lodged by BEO, Sagar. BEO
received a circular from DDPI, Shivamogga on 04.08.2004
and a telephonic message on 09.08.2004 in respect of
appointment of fake teachers.
3.2. Based on the circular, BEO verified the
documents pertaining to service register and other
documents pertaining to the revision petitioner who was
recently transferred from K.P.Doddi, Government Primary
School, Bengaluru Rural District. The transfer order was
dated 03.06.2003 and on enquiry with the BEO of
Ramanagara Taluk, it came to light that revision petitioner
was not working as a teacher at all in K.P.Doddi and
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
revision petitioner never corresponded with them and
there was no Last Pay Certificate issued by concerned
authority from the school at K.P.Doddi.
3.3. On obtaining such information, BEO, Sagar paid
surprise visit to Chengavalli Primary School on 06.08.2004
and 07.08.2004 and noticed that revision petitioner had
applied for leave from 09.08.2004 to 17.08.2004 by
addressing a leave letter to another teacher of
Government Higher Primary School at Nellibeedu. He also
came to know that accused had vacated the rented house
which was belonging to Sri.Ganapathi Shetty.
3.4. On further enquiry, complainant came to know
that parents of the revision petitioner are Sri.Kardru
Palaksha and Smt.Sarojamma and his wife was
Smt.Shanta. He made further enquiries and noted that
accused was never appointed by the Government and he
was discharging the work of a fake teacher and therefore,
sought for action.
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
3.5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the
charge sheet against the revision petitioner.
4. Presence of the revision petitioner along with
other two accused persons were secured and charges were
framed. All three accused persons pleaded guilty and
therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in
all nineteen witnesses were examined on behalf of
prosecution as P.W.1 to 19 and relied on thirty two
documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.32.
6. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses did not yield any positive material to disbelieve
the case of the prosecution nor the accused persons were
successful in establishing that present revision petitioner
was appointed by the Government as a regular teacher.
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded
accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313
of Cr.P.C., wherein accused persons including the revision
petitioner have denied all the incriminatory circumstances
found against them in the evidence of the prosecution and
did not chose to place any contra evidence on record nor
placed any written submission as is contemplated under
Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the
parties in detail and on consideration of oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, convicted
accused Nos.1 and 3 and acquitted accused No.2 for want
of necessary evidence and imposed the sentence as
referred to supra.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision
petitioner who is accused No.1 filed an appeal before the
First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2010.
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
10. It is submitted that accused No.3 died and
therefore, he did not challenge the order. Further, State
did not challenge the order of acquittal as against accused
No.2 is concerned.
11. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
entertained the appeal of the present revision petitioner
and on securing the records, reappreciated the material
evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the
revision petitioner and confirmed the order of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate.
12. Being further aggrieved by the same,
accused/revision petitioner is before this Court, in this
revision.
13. Smt.Preethi Kareddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition contended that in fact present revision
petitioner is the victim of the incident wherein accused
Nos.2 and 3 made to believe him that he got an
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
appointment from the Government as the present revision
petitioner did undertake necessary examination for the
appointment of teacher and it is accused Nos.2 and 3 who
colluded together and took money from the revision
petitioner and gave him appointment order and said
aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by
both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision
petition.
14. Alternately, Smt.Preethi Kareddy, learned
counsel contended that revision petitioner having lost his
job, is now eking out his livelihood by indulging himself in
agriculture who possess only one acre of land and a family
to maintain and taking note of the same, this Court may
consider that 27 days spent by him during the trial may be
treated as period of custody by enhancing suitable amount
as the fine.
15. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High
Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent
opposes the revision grounds including the alternate
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
submission in toto by contending that if any leniency is
shown to such persons, it would encourage the
perpetrators of the crime similarly placed and it would
send a wrong signal to the society and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
16. Having heard the parties, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, this
Court is satisfied that the material evidence on record
especially the documentary evidence placed on record by
the prosecution would be sufficient enough to hold that
accused did work as a fake teacher and not as a regular
teacher. There was no Government order appointing the
present revision petitioner as a teacher. Further, accused
No.1 managed to get a transfer order from K.P.Doddi to
Chengavalli.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
18. Based on the circular issued by DDPI,
Shivamogga, BEO of Sagar paid surprise visit to the school
where accused said to have worked. On two visits paid by
him on 06.08.2004 and 07.08.2004, accused was not
found. It is obvious that by that time, accused had come
to know that the action would be initiated against him and
therefore, he had applied for leave from 09.08.2004 to
17.08.2004 that too by sending a leave letter from
another teacher of another school. BEO left with no
alternative, had to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional
police.
19. All these aspects of the matter has been rightly
appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and for want of
Last Pay Certificate and similar documents from K.P.Doddi
School, it was crystal clear that revision petitioner was
never appointed as a teacher and it was accused Nos.2
and 3 who had managed to get him an appointment letter.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
20. It is pertinent to note that though several
allegations were also leveled against accused No.2 for
want of sufficient proof, especially the signature of the
accused No.2 in any aspect of the matter being not
available in any other documents, Trial Court had to record
an order of acquittal insofar as accused No.2 is concerned.
21. Taking note of other material evidence on
record, learned Trial Magistrate was constrained to convict
accused No.1, who is the revision petitioner and accused
No.3 as aforesaid and passed appropriate sentence.
22. Matter was carried up in the appeal by the
present revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.29/2010. Learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the
material evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the
appeal of the accused.
23. This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction
cannot revisit into the theory that is put forward by the
revision petitioner that he has been duped by accused
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
Nos.2 and 3. Moreover, mere attending the examination
itself was not sufficient as the declaration of the results of
examination, it was crystal clear that revision petitioner
had not passed the examination. However, if the
appointment is made by some fake documents
appointment letter has been obtained by the present
revision petitioner based on some fake documents. He
should have been doubly careful in not accepting such an
appointment.
24. Be it what it may, fact remains that revision
petitioner managed to get a transfer order from K.P.Doddi
to Chengavalli. When accused was not at all appointed by
the Government, there was no question of getting a
transfer order. In fact, such a transfer order is also a
fake order that has been managed by accused Nos.1 and
3. All these aspects have been taken into consideration by
both the Courts.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
25. This Court, in the light of the limited scope of
revisional jurisdiction, reconsidered these aspects of the
matter in the light of the arguments put forward on behalf
of the revision petitioner and does not find any legal
infirmity or perversity so as to interfere with the well
reasoned order of conviction recorded by learned Trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court.
26. Having said so, the alternate plea on behalf of
the revision petitioner is to be now considered by this
Court.
27. Smt.Preethi Kareddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner contended that incident is an isolated
incident and thereafter, there is no complaint against the
revision petitioner and he is eking out his livelihood by
indulging in agriculture. It is also a fact that the revision
petitioner accused is now aged about 51 years and he is
unable to get any employment and at this gist of time, if
the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court, it would act harsh insofar as revision
petitioner is concerned inasmuch as the revision petitioner
being the first time offender.
28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and
directing the period of 27 days undergone by the revision
petitioner in the judicial custody be treated as period of
imprisonment, ends of justice would be met.
29. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offences punishable under Section 420,
465 and 468 of IPC, sentence ordered by the
learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court is modified as
under:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45878
a. The custody period of 27 days undergone
by the accused is treated as period of
imprisonment.
b. Accused is ordered to pay enhanced fine
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before
31.12.2024 failing which accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year for each of the
offences punishable under Section 420,
465 and 468 of IPC.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records
with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
