Karnataka High Court
Balakrishnam Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200070 OF 2020
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BALAKRISHNAM RAJU
S/O SUBBARAJU MUDANOORI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.14, NEAR ADITYA GARDEN,
PRAGATI NAGAR, KUKKATPALLI,
HYDERABAD (AP)-500 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI- 585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
CRL.RP No. 200070 of 2020
HC-KAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. C.J. AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.1482/2009 AND
CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRL.A.NO.79/2018 DATED
29.07.2020 AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 421 AND
420 R/W 120(B) OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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)
The second accused in C.C.No.1482/2009, who alone
faced trial in respect of the charge sheet filed by the
Brahmpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 421
and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC, which got
confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.79/2018.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
2. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that
on 14.03.2009, the official of the Vishveshwaraiah Co-
operative Bank Limited, Kalaburagi lodged a complaint
with the Brahmpur Police Station, Kalaburagi contending
that there was misuse of funds of the Bank by issuing fake
demand drafts in the name of Sonali Sarees, Hyderabad
and documents were also fraudulently prepared in that
regard.
3. After registering the case, the police conducted
the investigation inter alia arrested the present revision
petitioner and recovered the money from his account and
it was repatriated to the Bank. Despite best efforts, other
accused persons could not be secured by the investigating
agency. Therefore, filed the charge sheet against the
present petitioner showing the remaining accused persons
as absconding accused. The revision petitioner faced the
trial and after due trial, he was convicted for the aforesaid
offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed
an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal
No.79/2018.
5. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court
after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and
by judgment dated 29.07.2020, dismissed the appeal of
the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the
revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision
petition.
7. Sri Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition vehemently contended that both the
Courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused for the
aforesaid offences, especially when the other accused
persons did not stand for trial, as they were absconding,
the proceeds of the demand draft, which was fraudulently
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
got concocted in the bank has been deposited into his
account which has been recovered by the investigating
agency. Therefore, no offence whatsoever has been
committed by the present petitioner. Hence, conviction of
revision petitioner needs to be set aside.
8. Alternatively, Sri Ashok Mulage learned counsel
for the revision petition would contend that in the event
this Court upheld the order of conviction, taking note of
the fact that the present petitioner is in judicial custody for
a period of five months, the said period may be treated as
the period of imprisonment by setting aside the remaining
portion of the imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount
reasonably and sought for allowing of the revision petition.
9. Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned
High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned
judgments. He would further contend that the loss that
has occurred to the Bank is Rs.7,00,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
10. Therefore, no mercy to be shown to the
petitioner. He would also contend that merely the other
accused persons are absconding, the same would not be a
ground to seek any relief before this Court and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record. On such perusal of
the material on record, it is crystal clear that the proceeds
of the demand draft were deposited into account of the
present revision petitioner. Admittedly, he did not have
any source in regard to the amount in his account.
Therefore, he should have repaid the same to the Bank.
But instead he kept quiet and the amount was recovered
after his arrest by the investigating agency. Silence of the
petitioner in this regard would make it clear that he was
also a party to the conspiracy with the other absconding
accused persons.
12. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Khalid Vs State of West
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
Bengal reported in 2002 (7) SCC 334, expecting the
positive or direct evidence in the matter of criminal
conspiracy is totally uncalled for and the Courts are
required to infer the role played by the particular accused
when criminal conspiracy is alleged.
13. In the case on hand, the very fact that the
other accused persons are not available to face the trial,
shows the guilty mind of the other accused persons.
Present petitioner having been arrested and there is no
explanation offered by the present petitioner for the huge
amount that was deposited into his account, shows
criminal conspiracy which existed in the incident.
14. Thus, the conviction of the accused for the
aforesaid offences is just and proper and requires no
interference by this Court that too in the revisional
jurisdiction.
15. Having said thus, the amount standing in the
account of the revision petitioner having been recovered
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
by the investigating agency and repatriated to the Bank
and taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner was
already in the custody for a period of five months, the
remaining period of the imprisonment ordered by the Trial
Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to
be set aside by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.25,000/-
which would met the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, the revision petition needs to be
allowed partly. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) The Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(b) While maintaining the conviction order passed
by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First
Appellate Court in convicting the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 465,
468, 421 and 420 read with Section 120B of
IPC, the custody period already undergone by
the revision petitioner is treated as a period of
imprisonment by directing the accused/revision
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2815
HC-KAR
petitioner to pay enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/-
on or before 30.06.2025.
(c) Failure to pay enhanced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- on or before 30.06.2025, the order
of imprisonment passed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands
restored automatically.
(d) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with a copy of this order forthwith for
issuance of modified order.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
