Karnataka High Court
Kulwant Singh vs The State By on 31 January, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
CRL.A No. 384 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 385 of 2012
CRL.A No. 408 of 2012
AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384 OF 2012 (C)
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.385 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.408 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.409 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.465 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.466 OF 2012
IN CRL.A No. 384/2012
BETWEEN:
KULWANT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SARDAR DARSHAN SINGH
R/O NO.D4, DAKSHINAKASHI APARTMENTS
NO.2637, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
signed by AND:
MALATESH
KC
THE STATE BY
Location: CBI
HIGH
COURT OF SPE-BANGALORE
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012 PASSED
BY THE XXI ADDL. C.C. AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.40/1996-CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120B OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
CRL.A No. 384 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 385 of 2012
CRL.A No. 408 of 2012
AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.A NO. 385/2012
BETWEEN:
1. KULWANT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SARDAR DARSHAN SINGH
R/O NO.D4, DAKSHINAKASHI APARTMENTS
NO.2637, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE
BY CBI
SPE-BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012
PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. C.C. AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE
FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.41/1996-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO. 408/2012
BETWEEN:
1. G DEVI PRASAD
S/O LATE K B SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O NO.E-017, STERLING BROOKS SIDE
KUNDALAL HALLI, ITPL MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 037
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
CRL.A No. 384 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 385 of 2012
CRL.A No. 408 of 2012
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
CBI: SPE, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012
PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN
SPL.C.C.NO.125/1993-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120-B OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO. 409/2012
BETWEEN:
G DEVI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE K.B. SHETTY
R/AT NO. E-017, STERLING BROOKS SIDE,
KUNDALAL HALLI, ITPL MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 037
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
CBI:SPE, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012 PASSED BY
THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO. 21/1993-CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120-B OF IPC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
CRL.A No. 384 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 385 of 2012
CRL.A No. 408 of 2012
AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.A No. 465/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L DAMODHARAN
# 43, RENUKAMBAL NILAYAM
III CROSS, RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY
SECTOR B, BASAVA NAGAR,
BANGALORE -560 037
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHOWDAPPA.B FOR SRI BHASKAR BABU H J,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
SPE, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012
PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.
NO.21/1993-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B, 465
AND 471 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A No.466/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L DAMODHARAN
#43, RENUKAMBAL NILAYAM
III CROSS, RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY
SECTOR-B, BASAVA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560037
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHOWDAPPA.B FOR SRI BHASKAR BABU H J,
ADVOCATES)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
CRL.A No. 384 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 385 of 2012
CRL.A No. 408 of 2012
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE SATE BY CBI, SPE
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.26.03.2012
PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C. No.
21/1993-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B, 465 AND
471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri S.G.Bhagavan, Sri Praveen C, Sri Chowdappa B
for Sri Bhaskar Babu H.J., learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, names of the accused, their
rank before the Special Court, Special CC number, Criminal
Appeal number, Conviction and sentence is tabulated
hereunder:
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
Name of the Rank Spl. C.C. Criminal Conviction Sentence
accused before No. Appeal for the passed
Spl. No. before offence
Court. this Court p/u/s
Kulwant Singh Accused 40/1996 384/2012 120B of SI for three
IPC months and
No.3 fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for one
month.
Kulwant Singh Accused 41/1996 385/2012 -do- -do-
No.3
G. Devi Prasad Accused 125/1993 408/2012 -do- -do-
No.2
G. Devi Prasad Accused 21/1993 409/2012 -do- -do-
No.2
L.Damodharan Accused 125/1993 465/2012 120B of SI for three
No.4 IPC months and
fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for one
month.
465 of IPC SI for one
year and
fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for three
months
471 of IPC SI for one
year and
fine of Rs.
25,000/- in
default, SI
for3months
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
L.Damodharan Accused 21/1993 466/2012 120B of SI for three
No.5 IPC months and
fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for one
month.
465 of IPC SI for one
year and
fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for three
months
471 of IPC SI for one
year and
fine of
Rs.25,000/-
in default,
SI for three
months
3. Facts of the case in a nutshell for the disposal of the
present appeals is as under:
As per the charge sheet material, it is found that in or
about November 1984 at Bengaluru, all the accused persons
entered into conspiracy to defraud Hindustan Vegetable Oils
Corporation, a Central Government of India undertaking
('HVOC' for short). Earlier, said concern was doing the
business in the name of Ganesh Flour Mills. Further to their
conspiracy on 20.11.1984 accused No.1-Bhattacharya, accused
No.2-Devi Prasad, accused No.3-Kulwant Singh dishonestly
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
recorded a joint decision to award a civil construction contract
worth Rs.66,00,000/- to M/s Reliance Engineering Works
represented by Sri Narendra Kumar Malik/ appellant in
Crl.A.No.429/2012.(dismissed as abated since Narendra Kumar
Malik is no more)
4. It is also further allegation that accused Nos.1 to 3 did
not have the financial power or authorization to award such a
civil contract which was worth Rs.66,00,000/- without the
concurrence of the Head Office of 'HVOC'. Further allegations
in the charge sheet materials would reveal that the appellants
simply accepted the quotation made by Narendra Kumar Malik
whereby there is a wrongful loss caused to 'HVOC' and wrongful
gain to the appellants including deceased Narendra Kumar
Malik. The contract was also approved based on calling for
quotation and three quotations were sent of which two
quotations viz., M/s Shabari Constructions and M/s Krishna
Constructions were not at all in existence. There was delay in
lodging the complaint. However, the CBI investigated the
matter in detail and filed the charge sheet.
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
5. Presence of accused persons was secured and after
compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, learned Special Judge framed the Charges
for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 465, 467,
471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) r/w
5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in respect of
accused persons in Spl.C.C.Nos.40/1996 and 125/1993.
Accused in Spl.C.C.Nos.41/1996 and 21/1993 were charged for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409, 465,
467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) r/w
5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
6. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial
was held.
7. In Special Case No.21/1993 prosecution examined 17
witnesses and placed on record as many as 101 documentary
evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 101
and on behalf of the defence, two witnesses viz.,
V.N.Venugopal and N.N.Diwan, were examined as D.Ws.1 and
2 and five documents were placed on record as Exs.D.1 to D.5.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
8. In Spl. Case No.125/1993, prosecution examined eleven
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and placed on record 52 documents
which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 52. On behalf
of the accused, V.N.Venugopal was examined as D.W.1 and two
documents were placed on record as Exs.D.1 and D.2.
9. On conclusion of the recording of evidence, learned
Special Judge recorded the accused statement wherein,
accused persons have denied the incriminatory circumstances.
10. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the parties in
detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, acquitted all the accused
persons for all the charges, except for the offence punishable
under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as
referred to supra.
11. However, L. Damodharan, who is accused No.4 in
Spl.C.C. No. 125/1993 and accused No.5 in Spl.C.C.No.21/1993
who has preferred Crl.A. Nos.465/2012 and 466/2012 was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as
referred to supra.
12. The prosecution did not chose to challenge the acquittal
of all the accused persons for rest of the Charges and
therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge
became final.
13. However, appellants have challenged their conviction for
the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code. L.Damodharan, appellant in Crl.A.Nos.465/2012 and
466/2012 has challenged the conviction for the offence
punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, as well.
14. Sri S.G.Bhagavan, Sri Praveen, and Sri Chowdappa B for
Sri Bhaskar Babu, learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently contend that when material evidence on record was
hardly sufficient for the learned Special Judge to record an
order of conviction for the rest of the offences, on the very
same set of offences, learned Special Judge ought not to have
convicted the appellants only for the offence punishable under
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, in
furtherance to conspiracy what is the offence committed having
not been established by the prosecution.
15. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that
Central Bureau of Investigation did not had the jurisdiction to
enquire into the matter inasmuch as while taking over M/s
Ganesh Flour Mills and forming into HVOC, the unit at Calcutta
and unit at Bengaluru were excluded. Therefore, appellants
could not have been the employees or the public servants
under the Central Government. Therefore, the very filing of the
charge sheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation itself is
incorrect which vitiates the entire trial and sought for allowing
the appeals.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that
what exactly is the conspiracy existed among appellants is not
even spoken to by the prosecution witnesses whereby, actual
loss that has been caused to HVOC has not been established
even as per the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge.
Therefore, conviction of the appellants solely on the ground of
illusory existence of criminal conspiracy punishable under
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
Section 120B of the IPC is impermissible and sought for
allowing the appeals.
17. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants made a
submission before this Court that in the event this Court
upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that
the incident said to have occurred in November 1984, at this
distance of time directing the appellants to undergo
imprisonment would act as harsh and by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably, the imprisonment may be set-aside.
18. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondent- Central Bureau of Investigation supports the
impugned judgment in recording an Order of conviction for the
offence punishable under Sections 120B, 465 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code.
19. He further contended that even in the absence of proof
for other offences under Indian Penal Code, apart from the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for which also
the public servant has been acquitted, the very fact of entering
into conspiracy which would turn out to be criminal conspiracy
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
itself is punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and
therefore, conviction needs to be maintained.
20. It is also his submission that since the conspiracy is
established by placing cogent evidence on record and the
statute provides for punishment of imprisonment to a
maximum of six months or with fine or with both, learned
Special Judge has used his discretion in granting three months
imprisonment and fine which is justifiable in the facts and
circumstances and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto.
21. Having heard the parties in detail this Court perused the
material on record meticulously.
22. On such perusal of the material on record, the following
points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the material evidence available on
record would be sufficient enough to
maintain the conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 120B, 465 and 471
of the IPC?
(ii) Whether the appellants make out a case that
the impugned judgment of convicting
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
appellants is suffering from legal infirmity,
perversity and thus calls for interference?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
(iv) What Order?
23. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 AND 2: In the case on hand,
even though technical arguments are advanced on behalf of the
appellants that CBI did not had jurisdiction to register the case
and proceed with the investigation and filing charge sheet, in
that regard for want of materials on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, such a technical argument cannot be
countenanced in law for more than one reasons.
24. Firstly, charge sheet was not challenged by the appellants
and they went through the trial without resisting on the said
aspect of the matter.
25. Secondly, having suffered an order of conviction,
participated in the trial, it is impermissible for the appellants to
canvass the said ground before this Court for the first time.
Therefore, the technical ground on which the impugned
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
judgment is attacked cannot be of much avail to the appellants
in seeking to set-aside of the impugned judgment.
26. On merits, there is sufficient force in the arguments that
has been put forth on behalf of the appellants that the fact of
want of evidence resulting in acquittal of the appellants for the
other IPC offences is relevant while appreciating the arguments
put forth on behalf of the appellants.
27. Accused No.1 being public servant having died during the
course of Trial there could not have been any conviction for him
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
28. So far as Sri Narendra Kumar Malik one of the accused
being the contractor of M/s Reliance having died during
pendency of these appeals and also taking note of the fact that
CBI did not challenge the acquittal of the appellants for the
remaining IPC offences, the only point that this court is
required to bestow in respect of the offence punishable under
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is inasmuch as "Whether
the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the prosecution
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
in both the cases would be sufficient enough to infer the conspiracy
existed among parties?"
29. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that while attracting
the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, each of
the conspirator need not know the entire design. It is sufficient
that if the role played by each of the conspirator if not the main
act would not have accomplished then each of the conspirator
would be held liable for offence punishable under Section 120B
of the IPC even though each of the conspirators are not fully
aware of what the fraudulent or illegal action that is sought to
be achieved by such conspiracy.
30. Gainfully this Court places its reliance on the plrinciples of
law enunciated in the case of Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West
Bengal reported in (2002)7 SCC 334 wherein, Hon'ble Apex
court has reiterated the principles of law enunciated in the
Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Kehar Singh vs.
State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1988)3 SCC 609.
31. In the background of the above legal principles when
material evidence on record is appreciated, it is crystal clear
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
that admittedly, for awarding the contract in a sum of
Rs.66,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- for civil work, accused Nos.1
to 3 did not have any power or authorization. Admittedly, such
contract should have been with recourse to the Head Office.
32. No such prior permission is obtained by the accused
Nos.1 to 3 while awarding contract to accused No.5 viz., M/s
Tirumala Constructions. Amount is also drawn by M/s Tirumala
Constructions. Admittedly, while awarding the contract to M/s
Tirumala Constructions, necessary precautionary methods are
not followed by public servants who are no more.
33. The rules and regulations while awarding the contract
having been thrown to the wind inasmuch as the competitive
quotations that were sought for and obtained as part of the
record shows that competitive concerns who said to have given
quotation were non existing concerns.
34. Therefore, there was secret agreement to achieve the
object of HVOC by illegal and dubious methods.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
35. In this regard, it is necessary for this Court to cull out the
definition of Criminal Conspiracy and the punishment for such
criminal conspiracy which are defined in Section 120A and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code. The same reads as under:
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy-
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement
to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, 51[imprisonment for life]
or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this
Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than
a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
36. On careful consideration of the above material on record,
civil work of HVOC getting a quotation from the prospective
contractor is a legal act. But to achieve that object, the
procedure adopted by the public servants and the beneficiaries
thereof is by illegal method which would conclude the offence of
criminal conspiracy.
37. Therefore, learned Special Judge recording an order of
conviction only for the offence punishable under Section 120B
of the IPC is based on sound and logical reasons which requires
no interference by this Court even after re-appreciation of the
material evidence on record. Consequently, point Nos.1 and 2
are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively.
38. REGARDING POINT No.3: Having held point Nos.1 and 2
as above, it is now the task of this Court to find out whether
the case on hand requires compulsory imprisonment period of
three months as is ordered in the impugned judgment or it is
appropriate to order fine alone.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
39. On perusal of the impugned judgment no special reasons
are forthcoming as to why learned Special Judge imposed three
months imprisonment and fine. More so, when the Section
itself would not indicate minimum punishment of imprisonment
prescribed under the statute.
40. Sri Damodar who is appellant in Crl.A. No.465/2012 and
Crl.A.No.466/2012 is also first time offender and beneficiary.
For the offence punishable under Section 465 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code also there is no compulsory imprisonment.
41. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis
that the Courts are required to hate the crime and not the
criminal. Moreover, none of the appellants were possessing
any criminal antecedents. As such, they were all first time
offenders.
42. Under such circumstances, non invoking the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and directly ordering for
imprisonment along with fine to be served and paid by the
appellants has resulted in miscarriage of justice in the
considered opinion of this Court.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
43. Even before this Court, respondent is unable to say as to
why imprisonment is a must in the case on hand.
44. Under such circumstances, exercising the power vested
with this Court in the appellate jurisdiction, this court is of the
considered opinion that if the imprisonment period of three
months each is set-aside by enhancing the fine amount in a
sum of Rs.10,000/- payable by each of the appellants in
Crl.A.Nos.384/2012, 384/2012, 408/2012 and 409/2012 and,
Rs.50,000/- payable by appellant in Crl.A.Nos.465/2012 and
466/2012 separately, would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
45. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of finding of this Court
on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i)The Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
appellants in Crl.A.Nos.384/2012, 385/2012 and
408/2012 for the offence punishable under Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code, the imprisonment
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
period of three months to be served by each of the
appellants in the above appeals is hereby set-aside
by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.10,000/- payable by each of the appellants, on
or before 28th February 2025, excluding the fine
already imposed and paid by the appellants.
(iii) While maintaining the conviction of the
appellants in Crl.A.Nos.465/2012 and 466/2012 for
the offence punishable under Section 120B, 465
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the
imprisonment period is hereby set-aside by
enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
in each of the appeal (totally Rs.1,00,000/-)
payable by the appellant, on or before 28th
February 2025, excluding the fine already imposed
and paid by the appellant.
(iv) Failure to make payment of the enhanced
fine amount would automatically result in restoring
the imprisonment period ordered by the learned
Special Judge in the impugned judgment.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4704
AND 3 OTHERS
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this judgment forthwith,
for issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
