Karnataka High Court

Sri Kariyappa T vs M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd on 9 June, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:19420
                                                         CRL.RP No. 820 of 2022


                       HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                                DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 820 OF 2022
                                    (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI KARIYAPPA T.
                       S/O THIMMAAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                       R/O H N.13/A BEHIND KAVERI SAWMIL
                       HIGHER GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
                       KEMPANAHALLI,
                       NEAR SHANESHAWARA TEMPLE,
                       CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY-577101.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE., ADVOCATE)
                       AND:
                       M/S MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.,
                       REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
                       HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
Digitally signed by    MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, II FLOOR,
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT   OPPOSITE SARITHA THEATER COMPLEX,
OF KARNATAKA
                       BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-18
                       AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.6952/5085
                       IST FLOOR CHAMUNDI FANCY STORE BUILDING
                       M G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

                       REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ASSISTANT MANAGER-IN-CHARGE
                       MR PANDU S/O KURUMBILA
                       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                       577101.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY RESPONDENT - SERVED (UNREPRESENTED))
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:19420
                                      CRL.RP No. 820 of 2022


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271/2019 BY
DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CC NO. 923/2016 AND THE PETITIONER
TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                       ORAL ORDER

Revision Petitioner/accused has preferred this

revision petition against the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence passed by the Court of Principal Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to

as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.923/2016 dated

29.11.2019 which is confirmed by the Court of II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter

referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in

Crl.A.No.271/2019 dated 11.10.2021.

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this

revision petition are referred to as per their status and

rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition

are that the complainant has filed a private complaint

under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against this revision

petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 417,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is

alleged by the complainant that complainant company is a

non-banking finance company registered under the

Companies Act, 1956, having a valid certificate of

registration from the Reserve Bank of India, which permits

complainant company to give loans to public against the

pledge of gold ornaments. The complainant company has

got more than 4000 branches all over the country

including branch at Chikkamagaluru. The accused, on

01.12.2012 pledged gold ornaments weighing 51 grams

and obtained loan of Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant's

company. Thereafter on 16.07.2013, Santhebennur police

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

came to the complainant's company with accused for

recovery of gold ornaments pledged in the finance

company and seized them from the complainant. At the

time of pledging gold ornaments, this accused had stated

that they belong to him. Later, it is learnt that it is a

stolen property in Crime No.135/2012 of Santhebennur

Police Station. The accused has pledged gold ornaments

which was stolen, by misrepresentation and has received

Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant. Thus, the accused

has committed the offence punishable under Sections

417,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On the basis of averments made in the

complaint PCR No.9/2015 and the documents produced by

the complainant, the Trial Court took cognizance of the

offences and recorded the sworn statement of the

complainant and registered the case against this accused

in C.C.No.923/2016 and summons was issued to him.

(Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Chikkamagaluru has not passed any order as to the penal

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

provisions of Indian Penal Code. However, the order sheet

pertaining to C.C.No.923/2016 reveals that provisions of

law is shown as Sections 417, 418 and 420 of Indian Penal

Code.) by concerned case worker without the order of the

Court.

5. In pursuance of summons, the accused

appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail.

Before framing of charge, learned Magistrate has recorded

the evidence of PW.1. On the basis of his evidence, the

Trial Court has held that there are sufficient material

against this accused and accordingly charges are framed

and the same was read over to the accused. Having

understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of complainant one Pandu,

Assistant Manager of Muthoot Finance Company is

examined as PW.1 and 13 documents were marked as

Exs.P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution evidence,

statement under Section 313 was recorded, but the

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution

witnesses. The accused himself adduced his evidence as

DW.1 and no documentary evidence is produced by him.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 417,418 and 420 of Indian

Penal Code and passed sentence only to the offence under

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code i.e. to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order

on sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal before

the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru

in Crl.A.No.271/2019 and the same came to be dismissed

on 11.10.2021.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner

has preferred the present revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/accused would submit that the order passed by

both Courts are perverse and devoid of merits and same is

liable to be set aside. The learned Magistrate has not

applied his mind to the evidence on record while passing

impugned order and the said impugned order is erroneous

and bad in the eye of law. As per the complaint allegation,

the petitioner pledged the theft gold ornaments with

complainant company and received the amount, but both

the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the gold

articles are theft by one Vasanth and Devaraj and charge

sheet is laid against them in C.C.No.62/2014 and the

petitioner herein is not the accused in the said case and he

is only the witness in the charge sheet and his role is

limited to the extent that he received the gold ornaments

from the accused for valuable consideration and pledged

the same before the complainant company and secure the

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

loan. Further, the said articles have been seized by the

police pursuant to the complaint.

10. It is submitted that from the above facts, the

Trial Court can draw inference that the revision

petitioner/accused has not committed the theft of gold

ornaments and without knowing the said fact, he received

the same and pledged the gold ornaments to the

complainant's company. The complainant has filed suit

against this revision petitioner/accused in OS.No.293/2013

and the same came to be decreed on 31.07.2019 by the I

Addl. Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, which itself indicates

that the revision petitioner/accused paid the amount which

was received from the company by pledging the gold

ornaments. When such being the case, the question of

cheating the complainant does not arise. After filing the

civil suit, private complaint came to be filed by

complainant invoking the alleged offences against this

accused. Both Courts below without taking note of the

pendency of the civil suit on the same cause of action,

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

proceeded to take cognizance and convicted the revision

petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 420 of

Indian Penal Code which is not permissible under law. The

complainant has not examined any other witnesses except

PW.1 who is an interested witness and an employee of the

said Muthoot Finance Company.

11. Further, he would submit that the case

registered against the accused namely Vasantha and

Devaraj in C.C.No.62/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and

Addl. JMFC, Tarikere ended with acquittal vide judgment

dated 17.03.2021 and a copy of the same is produced.

The accused has not cheated the complainant and he has

not dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property

or to make alter, or destroy a valuable security or

anything capable of being converted into a valuable

security as required under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code.

12. Lastly, the learned counsel would submit that

absolutely there are no material evidence on record

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

against this revision petitioner/accused for the commission

of offences under Section 417, 418 and 420 of Indian

Penal Code and without considering these aspects, the

Trial Court has convicted the accused for alleged offences,

which is not sustainable under law. Even the Appellate

Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence on record.

On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision

petition.

13. Despite service of notice to respondent,

remained absent and unrepresented.

14. Having heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and on

perusal of the material placed before me, the following

points would arise for my consideration.

i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused have made out grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is illegal, perverse and not sustainable under law?

ii. What order?

15. My answer to the above points are as under:

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

Point No.1: in affirmative

Point No.2: as per final order.

Regarding point No.1:

16. I have carefully examined the material placed

before me.

On the basis of private complaint dated 12.03.2015

filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by Muthoot Finance

Company represented by its Assistant Manager-in charge

Mr. Pandu, the Trial Court has recorded the sworn

statement of PW.1/complainant Pandu and registered the

case against the accused for the commission of offences

under Section 417, 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

17. Ex.P11 the charge sheet submitted by the

Tarikere Police, Tarikere Circle, reveals that on the basis of

the complaint filed by one Rudramma, W/o. Thippeshappa,

Bukkambudi Village, Tarikere Taluk, Tarikere police have

registered the case in crime No.135/2012 and after

investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the

charge sheet against accused No.1-Vasantha and accused

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

No.2-Devaraj for the commission of offence under Section

392 of Indian Penal Code. In the said charge sheet, the

investigation officer has cited 19 witnesses as CWs.1 to 19

in which the present revision petitioner Kariyappa is shown

as CW.13. Further, it is alleged that on 18.10.2012 at 2.00

p.m., on Bukkambudi-Masanakere Road, near

Bukkambudi-Kerekodi within the jurisdiction of Ajjampura

Police Station, the accused Nos.1 and 2 came on a stolen

Herohonda Motorcycle bearing Chassis

No.MBLHA10EJ8GC01741 and No.HA10EA8GC01774 and

by splattering chilli powder into the eyes of CW.1,

snatched 51 gms of gold chain and sold the same to

CW.13 - Kariyappa i.e. the present revision petitioner as

they badly in need of money and received Rs.75,000/-

from CW.13 thereby committed the offence punishable

under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code.

18. The investigating officer has not submitted the

charge sheet against the present revision petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

Code. If really the present revision petitioner has

dishonestly received or retained the stolen property either

knowingly or having no reason to believe, the same shall

be deemed as stolen property. But the investigating

officer has not made any such accusation against this

accused. The complainant Pandu is also shown as CW.14

in the charge sheet stating that CW.13 - Kariyappa has

pledged the stolen gold ornaments to the Muthoot Finance

and obtained loan.

19. Further, CW.14 Pandu who is the complainant in

the instant case has not taken any steps with regard to

release of property which were seized by the police. This

witness is also examined before the Court below as PW.9

which reflects in the judgment pertaining to

C.C.No.62/2014. Though PW.10 has got knowledge as to

the charge sheet submitted against the present revision

petitioner in C.C.No.62/2014, the complainant has not

taken any legal steps to implead the present revision

petitioner as accused in that case for commission of

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. After

lapse of about 3 years i.e. from the date of offence of

robbery pertaining to C.C.No.62/2014, the complainant

has presented this private complaint before the learned

Magistrate. The complainant/PW.1 has not explained the

delay in filing this complaint and has not whispered

anything as to non-taking of steps in C.C.No.62/2014 and

also not taken steps with regard to release of stolen gold

ornaments which is said to have been seized from the

possession of the complainant.

20. When the complainant has failed to place the

material to prove that the accused, knowing fully, that the

article is received as the stolen property and pledged the

same to complainant company i.e. Muthoot Finance

Company and received the amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, the

question of committing the offence under Section 417,418

and 420 of Indian Penal Code does not arise.

21. Admittedly, the complainant has filed suit

against the present revision petitioner for recovery of

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

amount and the same is decreed by the Court in

O.S.No.293/2013. Both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law

and facts and also ignored the provisions of Section 411 of

Indian Penal Code and even though there are no essential

ingredients to attract the offence under Section 417,418

and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court without

appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the

accused and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

Hence, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence

passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the

Appellate Court, warrants interference by this Court as the

said judgment suffers from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I

answer point No.1 in affirmative.

Regarding point No.2:

22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19420

HC-KAR

ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.923/2016 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.271/2019 by the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 417,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. v. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the respondent through registered post.