Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mangakka on 21 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7207
CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. MANGAKKA
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. RAJA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/A VADDARAHALLI,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 511.
Digitally signed by
SREEDHARAN ...RESPONDENTS
BANGALORE SUSHMA
LAKSHMI (BY SMT. D MANJULA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 AND 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.11.2017
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AND THE ORDER
DATED 08.04.2013 IN C.C.NO.152/2002 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA, INSOFAR AS
RESPONDENTS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7207
CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the State challenging the
impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 in
Criminal Appeal No.22/2013 passed by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara and order
dated 08.04.2013 in C.C.No.152/2002 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagara.
2. Heard Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for petitioner / State and
Smt. D.Manjula, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent.
3. It is the submission of learned High Court Government
Pleader that the judgment and orders passed by the
Courts below are against law and therefore, the same are
liable to be set aside.
4. It is further submitted that the Trial Court while passing
the judgment recorded the conviction in respect of
accused Nos.1 and 3, however, there was no whisper in
respect of accused Nos.2 and 4. It is further submitted
that as against the said order, the State had preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court for enhancement of
NC: 2025:KHC:7207
punishment. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as
not maintainable. Hence, this revision.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader further
submitted that since there was no order either for
acquittal or for discharge against respondents / accused
Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, the impugned judgment was
required to be re-looked and the matter may be
remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Making such submissions, the learned High Court
Government Pleader prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently
justified the order of the Appellate Court and she further
submitted that the State had preferred an appeal for
enhancement of punishment against accused Nos.1 and 3
and later, the names of the respondents were inserted by
way of amendment. When there was no order for
conviction of accused Nos.2 and 4, filing an appeal
against accused Nos.2 and 4 for enhancement of
punishment obviously would not arise. Therefore, the
Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal as not
maintainable. Therefore, against the said order the
NC: 2025:KHC:7207
revision is not maintainable. Having said thus, she prays
to dismiss the revision petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, it
appears from the judgment that the Trial Court framed
the charges against all the accused and cited the reasons
for conviction of accused Nos.1 and 3. However, the Trial
Court had not discussed about the overt acts of accused
Nos.2 and 4. The operative portion of the said order
would indicate that only accused Nos.1 and 3 were
convicted. It means, the accused Nos.2 and 4 have been
acquitted even though it was not specifically mentioned in
the said order.
8. As against the order of acquittal passed against accused
Nos.2 and 4, the State should have filed an appeal before
this Court. However, it has approached the wrong forum
and the Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal
as not maintainable.
9. Be that as it may, since the State needs to challenge the
order of acquittal passed against accused Nos.2 and 4 by
the Trial Court, the nomenclature of this criminal revision
NC: 2025:KHC:7207
petition has to be changed into criminal appeal. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) This Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable.
ii) The Registry is directed to convert this criminal
revision petition into criminal appeal and post this
matter before the appropriate Bench having roster.
iii) The petitioner / State is directed to file an appeal
memo within a period of two weeks from today.
iv) The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus
Curiae is appreciated. The appreciation is placed on
record. The Legal Services Authority is directed to
pay remuneration of Rs.5,000/- to the learned
Amicus Curiae, for her effective assistance,
forthwith.
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
