Karnataka High Court
Sri Janya Nayaka vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JANYA NAYAKA
SON OF DODDANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
R/O 7TH CROSS, NEAR SRP CONVENT SCHOOL
VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ARCHANA, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 16.07.2016 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.104/2012 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 06.09.2012 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.341/2008 BY THE J.M.F.C., HARAPANAHALLI AND
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 468 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
CRL.RP No. 1229 of 2016
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned Amicus Curies appearing on
behalf of revision petitioner and also learned counsel for
respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order of
conviction and sentence by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.341/2008 dated 06.09.2012and confirmation order
by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.104/2012 dated
16.07.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 468
of Indian Penal Code.
3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before
the Trial Court that the accused is a Village Accountant
working in Togarikatte village during 1987-88. The first
information is cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.424/D
measuring 1.05 acres situated at Togarikatte village. The
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
first informant has filed Form No.7 before the Land
Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.424D is standing in the name
of Halavva since 1971. The accused has forged the name
of Halavva and inserted the name of Halappa in the
concerned RTC Register without order of the appropriate
authority. Hence, an allegation is made against him that
he has has forged the document to cheat the complainant.
On the basis of the complaint, Police have registered the
case in Cr.No.57/2007 for the offences punishable under
Sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. After
completing the investigation, the Police have filed the
charge sheet against for the offence punishable under
Section 468 ad 471 of IPC. The Trial Court taken
cognizance and the secured the accused and the accused
did not plead guilty and hence, prosecution in order to
prove the charges, examined PW1 to PW9 and also got
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. The accused was also subjected
to 313 statement and he has not lead any defense
evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material
on record, particularly the document of Ex.P4 where the
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
name of the accused was inserted in the RTC extract
without any order from the concerned authority as well as
the evidence of PW1 and so also the evidence of PW9 who
is the retired Tahashildar comes to the conclusion that
accused only forged the document of Ex.P4 -Pahani and
also even in paragraph No.14 extracted the admission on
the part of the accused in the 313 statement wherein he
admits that he also continued the entries and hence,
comes to the conclusion that forgery is made by him and
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of
IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section
471 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo one year with a
fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
468 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is
filed in Crl.A.No.104/2012 and having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal and on re-appreciation of
both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court also
in paragraph No.15 detail discussion is made with regard
to both oral and documentary evidence available on record
and also comes to the conclusion that in Ex.P8 in the year
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
1985-86 are subsequent entries, even Ex.P8 and Ex.P7
depicts that the entries made in the year 1978-79 both in
paragraph Nos.9 and 12, subsequently an insertion was
made. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
evidence also taken note of subsequent entries from the
year 1979-80 upto 1984-85 clearly depict the name of
Halavva, Gangavva so also the facts clearly shows that it
was over written by the accused himself. When the
accused himself is the cause for this fraudulent entry, it is
also observed that due to this wrong entry, the said
Halappa has obstructed the complainant and he has been
interfering in the property bearing Sy.No.424/D and PW1
also clearly deposed the same and also taken note of the
admitted fact that accused was the custodian of the
document that is public document during that period and
so also he forged these public documents which were in
his custody and hence, comes to the conclusion that
invoking of Section 468 of IPC and ingredients of the
offence are also invoked. When he was having the
knowledge of entry burden of proving thatfact is affirm
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
him he did not make such an entry and incriminating has
not been explained by the accused and instead of he
admitted the entry made by him as the entries made in
the year 1978-79 and hence, confirmed the order of the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court
and also the First Appellate Court the present revision
petition is filed.
The revision petitioner in the revision petition
contended that ingredients of offence under Section 468 of
IPC was not proved and both the Courts fails to consider
the material on record, lower Court committed a grave
error in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment and
went on discussed the alleged entries made in the course
of column No.12(2) of RTC extract and wrongly observed
that subsequently in the year 1985-86 name of Halappa,
Gangavva is inserted in Ex.P4 and placed emphasis on 313
statement the accused as observed in paragraph No.14 of
the judgment. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that accused in 313 statement unequivocally stated that
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
entries made in the year 1979-80 and after lapse of 5
years, the same has been entered by him, it is nothing but
amendment of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since whose
name found in Column No.9 shall be entered in column
No.12(2) of RTC only and nobody else. Having considered
the factual aspects, both the Courts have committed an
error and even First Appellate Court also committed an
error in not scrutinizing the material on record. In Ex.P5
wherein it is crystal clear that in the year 1978 and 1979
itself there was an alteration and no action was taken in
respect of the person who was working as Village
Accountant in the year 1978-79. It is also contended that
there is no any whisper against the accused though there
is clear allegation against one Halappa as well as another
person who are the beneficiary and responsible for
alteration of name of Talavagala Halavva and this
petitioner is not the beneficiary and hence, this Court has
to requires interference of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note
of the evidence of PW1 wherein specifically made an
allegation that in view of making the entry as Halappa in
the place of Halavva, the claim was made before the Land
Tribunal and also causing interference with his possession.
Apart from that evidence of PW1 and PW9-Tahasildar,
categorically deposes that the documents were in the
custody of this petitioner and when such material is found,
both oral and documentary evidence available on record,
question of interfering does not arise.
Having heard the Amicus curie appearing on behalf
of the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the
respondent and also considering the material on record,
the specific case against the petitioner is that he was
working as Village Accountant for the period from 1984-85
to 1993-94 and he made the entries in the name of
Halappa instead of Halavva and based on that entry, the
person whose name is entered in the records, he made the
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
claim before the Land Tribunal as well as interfering with
the possession of the complainant PW1. In order to prove
the said fact, document of Ex.P4 also taken note of where
there is an alteration in respect of RTCs' of the year 1985
and 1986 onwards. The defense of the petitioner also that
there was an alteration in the year 1978 and 1979 itself
and the same has been carried out. The said contention of
the petitioner's counsel also cannot be accepted for the
reason that except the material alteration in the year
1978-79 changing the name as Halappa instead of Halavva
there were no further entries in the RTC, but the fact is
that when he was appointed as Village Accountant of
Togarikatte Village in the year 1984-85, but subsequent
entries were made in the name of Halappa instead of
Halavva and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are also marked. The
Ex.P3(b) Ex.P3(c) are not natural hand writing, both
names are specifically disclose that it is altered as Halappa
instead of Halavva and the same is also taken note of by
the Trial Court in paragraph No.10. It is also important to
note that with regard to who had done the same also in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
paragraph No.14 of the Trial Court discussed the same.
Even taken note of the paragraph No.14, statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC of the accused, he
also admits the entry but only his defense is that there
was an entry in the year 1978 -79 and hence, continued
the same from 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89
the name of Halappa, Gangavva is inserted in Ex.P4(c)
and having taken note of this fact into consideration and
when he did not deny that he was not a Village Accountant
by that time.
It is important to note that First Appellate Court also
taken note of that he was in custody of those documents
of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and when the same was found material
alterations, case was registered at the instance of the
complainant PW1 who has been examined and having
considered the evidence of PW1 coupled with evidence of
PW9 and also the documentary evidence, particularly the
entry in Ex.P4(a) to Ex.P4(e) which is very clear that
forgery of mentioning the name of Halappa in the place of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
Halavva. When such oral and documentary evidence
supports the case of the prosecution and the very
contention of the petitioner's counsel that he only carried
the entry found in 1978-79 cannot be accepted and having
perused the same, it is only a material alteration of name
of Halavva as Halappa but subsequent entries made in
Ex.P4 is very clear from 1985-86 onwards mentioned the
name of Halappa instead of Halavva. Having taken note of
material available on record as well as the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and accused also not lead any
defense evidence except making the 313 statement and in
313 also he admitted the entry made by him for the period
from 1985-86 onwards and when such being the material
on record, the Trial Court also taken note of paragraph
No.14, 15 clear discussion was made and apart from that
First Appellate Court on re-appreciating the same in
paragraph No.15 in toto taken note of entries, particularly
discussion was made in the name of Halavva by last word
is corrected as Halappa. Even taken note of there was an
entry in the year 1978-79 and subsequent year also there
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
was no any entry in the name of Halappa and suddenly
change during the tenure of this petitioner in the year
1985-86, the present accused was the custodian of these
records which is clearly stated by the concerned Tahasildar
and also it is not disputed by the present accused. When
such material is appreciated by the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court, I do not find any error in coming
to the conclusion that there is no any perversity and the
same is based on the oral and documentary evidence
available on record. This Court can exercise the revisional
power only if finding is perverse and also the finding is not
legal and suffers from its legality and correctness only can
exercise the revisional jurisdiction and the said
circumstance is not warranted in the case on hand. Hence,
I do not find any merit in the revision.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7961
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is dismissed.
ii) The Registry is directed to pay an amount
of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Amicus Curie.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
