Karnataka High Court
Gorak S/O Amruth Rao Mankar vs The State Of Karnataka, Through on 2 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200054 OF 2022
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
GORAK S/O AMRUTH RAO MANKAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHANDANHALLI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585401,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
Digitally signed POLICE, HUMNABAD POLICE STATION,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585401,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ADMIT THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 IN CRL.A. NO.5023/2021,
PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
CRL.RP No. 200054 of 2022
HC-KAR
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
THEREBY CONFIRMING AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 12.10.2021 IN C.C. NO.462/2016,
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUMNABAD
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 419, 420, 468 OF IPC, THEREBY
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER OF ALL CHARGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. The revision petitioner is accused No.1, who
suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.462/2016 for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year
simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
default sentence, two years simple imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.2,500/- with default sentence and two years
simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with
default sentence respectively.
3. Validity of the conviction and sentence was the
subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.5023/2021 on
challenge by the accused. Learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the
arguments of the parties, re-appreciated the material
evidence and dismissed the appeal by a considered
judgment dated 16.09.2022.
4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court.
5. Sri Sanjay A. Patil learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts
have not properly appreciated the material evidence on
record and wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
6. He also pointed out that the learned Trial Judge
on same set of material evidence, acquitted the bank
officials, who have received the documents and took it as
deposit of title deeds and lent the loan. As such, same
logic should have been applied to the present revision
petitioner.
7. Alternatively, Sri Sanjay A. Patil learned counsel
for the petitioner would contend that in the event of this
Court upholding the order of conviction, sentence of
imprisonment may be set aside by directing the accused to
pay the enhanced fine amount, as no financial loss has
occurred to the bank and sought for allowing the revision
petition to such an extent.
8. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader opposed the revision
grounds and supported the impugned order of conviction
and sentence.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
9. He would further contend that admittedly the
RTC extract of the land was concocted for the purpose of
furnishing the property as security for obtaining the loan
from the State Bank of India, Humnabad Branch and
enjoyed the proceeds of the loan amount for the purpose
of purchase of a tractor which shows that there was a
wrongful loss caused to the bank and wrongful gain to the
petitioner, besides falsifying the documents for the
purpose of obtaining the loan and therefore all ingredients
to attract the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of
IPC have been established by the prosecution and thus
sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that there is no financial loss caused to the
bank, inasmuch as the loan account is regularized.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
12. Further, the fact of bank officials accepting the
documents without proper verification and had the benefit
of acquittal is a significant factor that has to be taken into
consideration while considering the case of the revision
petitioner but the distinction between the bank officials
and the present petitioner is that the present petitioner,
who has managed to get a falsified RTC extract to be
given as a security for obtaining the loan from the State
Bank of India, Humnabad Branch.
13. The loan proceeds has been utilized by the
present petitioner for purchase of tractor. Later on, when
the account became irregular, when the enquiry was
conducted and when the mortgage was sought to be
pressed into service, the mischief played by the petitioner
has come into light and thereafter the action was initiated.
14. Admittedly, the documents that have been
furnished for the purpose of obtaining the loan were not
genuine documents. In other words, even though the loan
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
account is regularized, there was a temporary misuse of
the documents, inasmuch as false documents were sought
to be depicted as genuine documents only for the purpose
of obtaining the loan.
15. These ingredients have been established
predominantly on the basis of the documentary evidence
rather than the oral evidence.
16. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by
the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate
Court needs no interference that too in the revisional
jurisdiction.
17. Having said so, since the pecuniary loss has
been made good to the bank, the accused, being the first
time offender, being a family person to look after the wife
and children, this Court is of the considered opinion that if
the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for the date till raising of the Court by enhancing the fine
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, ends of justice would be
met.
18. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
(b) While maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420 and
468 of IPC, sentence ordered by Trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First
Appellate Court is modified by directing the
revision petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for the day till raising of the
Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- on or before 31.07.2025.
(c) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- on or before 31.07.2025, the
revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3582
HC-KAR
(d) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with a copy of this order for issue
of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
