Karnataka High Court
Smt. Pakkeramma vs State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
CRL.RP No. 518 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.518 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PAKKERAMMA
W/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT BILAGALI VILLAGE
SHAKUNAVALLI POST
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
PIN-577429
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BELAGALADI MANJAPPA BASAVANNEPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANAVATTI POLICE
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING
MALATESH
BENGALURU
KC
...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CRL.P.C
KARNATAKA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SORABA IN
C.C.NO.225/2011 AND CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420 AND 406 OF IPC AND ALSO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VTH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA
SITTING AT SAGARA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10003/2019
CONFIRMING THE CRIMINAL CASE NO.225/2011 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SORABA.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
CRL.RP No. 518 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri M.B.Belagalad, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
C.C.No.225/2011 dated 18.12.2018 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, sentencing to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the
offences punishable under Section 420 and, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the
offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code,
confirmed in Crl.A.No.10003/2019 dated 25.09.2020 on the file
of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting
at Sagar, is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal
of the present revision petition are as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
In respect of a play ground of Government Higher
Primary School, Shakunavalli village, work was entrusted to a
contractor under the scheme 'Rashtreeya Udhyoga Khatri
Yojane'. Accused No.1 being the President and Accused No.2
being the Secretary of Shukunavalli Grama Panchayath, created
fake documents in the names of Ganapathi, Parasappa and
Mallikarjuna and got deposited Rs.14,124/- to their bank
account and thus cheated and committed criminal breach of
trust.
4. Based on the complaint, Anavatti Police filed the charge
sheet against the present revision petitioner who is accused
No.1.
5. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid
offence and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and
therefore, framed the Charge and trial was held.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, ten
witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 10 and as many as
fourteen documents were placed on record which were
exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 14 comprising of mahazar,
complaint, statement of P.Ws.4 and 5, panchanama, D.C.bill
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
book, cheque book of Bank of India, NMR register extracts,
NREG Bank of India Pass Book, FIR, Property list, excavation
extract of leveling of play ground of Shakunavalli Higher
Primary School and Investigating book.
7. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did
not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the version of
the prosecution.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate recorded the
statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, accused denied all
the incriminatory materials. But did not place any written
submission on record as is contemplated under Section 313(4)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor placed any defence
evidence.
9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties and
noting the fact that even though C.Ws.6 to 8 were not
employed as labourers for leveling the play ground in the
Government Higher Primary School, Shakunavalli, created
documents that they were employed in the said work under
NREGA Scheme and paid sum of Rs.14,124/- which is evident
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
from the documentary evidence placed on record and convicted
the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
as referred to supra.
10. Challenging the Order passed by the learned Trial
Magistrate Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed separate appeals.
Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the
records and re-appreciating the material on record, passed a
common judgment and dismissed both the appeals.
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has
preferred the present revision petition.
12. Sri Belagalad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended
that, in fact, work was carried out as per the report and
therefore, there was no question of misappropriation and small
mistake that has been committed is in the absence of bank
account of other family members, cheque was drawn in favour
of one person which is blown out of proportion and false case is
foisted against the revision petitioner and therefore, sought to
allow the revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
13. Alternatively, learned counsel submits that in the event
this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the
fact that revision petitioner has lost the position of
Presidentship of Shakuvanalli Grama Panchayath as her term
has come to an end, lost her husband and nobody is there to
look after her and she is eking out her livelihood by doing coolie
work and therefore, by enhancing the fine amount reasonably,
imprisonment may be set-aside.
14. Per contra, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader supports the impugned orders and
opposes the revision grounds in toto.
15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the
material on record, meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, the
prosecution case hinges only on the documentary evidence
rather than the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
17. Admittedly, C.Ws.6 to 8 have not been employed for the
purpose of work at Government Higher Primary School
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
Shakuvanalli and bill has been prepared in their name and
payment is also made.
18. Completion of the offence takes place in preparing a false
bill and making payment from the funds available under NREGA
scheme. Therefore, Order of conviction recorded by the
learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court needs no interference having regard to the
limited powers vested in this Court under revisional jurisdiction.
19. Further, taking note of the fact that accused is a lady now
aged 70 years and is depending on the small coolie work to
eke out her livelihood, having lost her husband, this Court at
this distance of time, if confirmed the Order of imprisonment, it
would work harsh on the revision petitioner.
20. Instead, if revision petitioner is directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court and
ordered to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, ends of
justice would be met.
21. Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:46415
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian penal Code,
sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate
confirmed by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court is modified to the effect that the
revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court.
(iii) Revision Petitioner shall pay enhanced fine
amount of Rs.20,000/- on or before 31st
December 2024, failing which, shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
(iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this Order.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
