Karnataka High Court
Lingraj S/O Gundayya Saazi vs The State on 16 June, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200015 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
C/W.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200078 OF 2020
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200025 OF 2021
IN CRL. RP NO. 200015/2021:
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O GUNDURAO KULKARNI,
Digitally signed AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK,
by RENUKA R/O BRAHMPUR,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALBURAGI BENCH-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 19.10.2020 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.84/2018,
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.4300/2011
BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471,
420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BY THE RESPONDENT BRAHMPUR
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI.
----------
IN CRL. RP NO. 200078/2020:
LINGRAJ S/O GUNDAYYA SAAZI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MANIKESHWARI COLONY, BRAHMPUR,
KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401
OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI, DATED
29TH NOVEMBER, 2018 AND CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.83/2018 BY JUDGMENT DATED 19TH OCTOBER, 2020.
---------
IN CRL. RP NO. 200025/2021:
RAMABAI W/O SHIVAKUMAR GAYAKWAD,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O BASAVA NAGAR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
DIST. KALABURAGI-07.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.4300/2011 DATED 29.11.2018,
CONFIRMED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.86/2018 DATED 19.10.2020
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
CRL.RP No. 200015 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2020
CRL.RP No. 200025 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
HER THEREIN.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Smt. Hema L. K., Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar
and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels for the petitioners and
Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, H.C.G.P., for the respondent-
State.
2. These three revision petitions are filed by accused
Nos.5, 1 and 3, respectively in C.C.No.4300/2011 on the file
of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi.
3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the above
revision petitions are as under:
Upon the charge-sheet filed by Brampur Police, in
respect of Crime No.157/2010 alleging the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
Section 34 of IPC, the learned trial Magistrate took
cognizance and after due trial, convicted the accused Nos.1
to 3 and 5 for the offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471
of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one year for
the offence under Section 468 and six months for the offence
under Section 465 and 471 of IPC and imposed fine of
Rs.3,000/- each to the aforesaid offences with default
sentence.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners
filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal
Nos.84/2018, 83/2018 and 86/2018, respectively.
5. The learned Judge in the first appellate Court
after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties
in detail and on cumulative re-appreciation of the material
evidence on record, dismissed the appeals filed by the
revision petitioners and confirmed the order of conviction
and sentence.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioners namely accused Nos.5, 1 and 3 have preferred
these revision petitions before this Court.
7. Accused No.2 Kamalabai who is an appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.86/2018 has not preferred any revision
petition, till today.
8. Accused No.4 said to have died during the
pendency of the trial and therefore, case against the accused
No.4 came to be abated before the trial Court.
9. Smt. Hema L.K., Sri Avinash A. Uploankar and Sri
Ganesh Naik, learned counsels appearing for the revision
petitioners in chorus contend before this Court that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence
on record and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners for
the aforesaid offences resulting in miscarriage of justice.
10. They would further contend that since the learned
trial Judge has acquitted the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC., in the absence of any wrongful loss or
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
wrongful gain proved by the prosecution, conviction of the
revision petitioners for the remaining offences would be ipso
facto illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Alternatively, they would contend that, in the
event this Court upholding the order of conviction passed by
the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court,
since all the revision petitioners are first time offenders, they
are entitle for grant of probation or in the alternative the
custody period already undergone by them treated as period
of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably
and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent.
12. Smt. Hema L.K., would contend that accused
No.5 had benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, only enhanced
fine may be imposed.
13. Per contra, Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil,
learned HCGP, not only supported the impugned Judgments,
but also contends that, the offences under Sections 465,
468, 471 can independently stand even in the absence of
offence under Section 420 IPC and therefore, conviction of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences is just and
proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petitioners.
14. He further contended that, when both the Courts
based on the material evidence have appreciated the
material facts in a judicious manner, this Court, having
regard to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdictional
cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter and
upset the findings recorded by both the Courts based on
findings and reasonings and thus, the revision petitions are
to be dismissed.
15. Insofar as the alternative submission is
concerned, Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil would contend
that, by virtue of the action attributable to the accused
persons, huge loss has been occurred to the complainant and
therefore, the question of showing any lenience of mercy to
the revision petitioners would not arise and therefore, sought
for dismissal of the revision petitions.
16. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
17. On such perusal of the material on record, the
following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully
established all ingredients to attract the offence under
Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC ?
(ii) Whether the revision petitioners establish
that the impugned Judgments are suffering from legal
infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference
in this revision petitions?
(iii) Whether the sentence is excessive?
(iv) What order?
18. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2:
18.1. In the case on hand, in order to bring home
the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution proceeded
to examine six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and placed on
record 180 documents.
18.2. Among the witnesses who have been
examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 is a panch
witness to Ex.P.133 - Seizure Panchanama. He has not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are the
material witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution.
P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed in line with the examination-in-
chief of P.W.6. P.W.6 deposed before the Court that accused
persons were in process of selling the fake caste certificate
and he came to know through a credible information when
he was working as a Police Inspector in Bramhapur Police
Station.
18.3 Accordingly, he proceeded to the spot on
26.06.2010 at about 2.50 p.m. along with his sub-staff and
caught hold of accused Nos.1 and 2 who were in the process
of selling fake caste certificate and from their custody he
seized material documents as well as the seal.
18.4 He also deposed about accused No.2 used
to forge the signature of Tahasildar and used to affix the
round seal on such certificate. It is the specific case of P.W.6
that as many as 54 caste certificates and income certificates
were seized from the custody of accused No.2, and nine
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
silver colour stamps from the custody of accused No.3.
Accused No.1 took the head of Raid Party to a photocopy
shop situated down side of the Gampa building whereunder,
the investigation agency was able to locate a laptop, printer
and packets containing silver color stamps and a sum of
Rs.4,700/- collected from the public vide papers and such
other incriminating materials and drafted Ex.P.133 seizure
panchanama.
18.5 Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
learned trial Judge appreciated the material evidence and
recorded a categorical finding that P.W.6 being the Police
Inspector of Brampura Police Station, did not nurture any
previous enmity of animosity against the accused persons to
foist a false case and case of the prosecution mainly
depended on the documentary evidence rather than the oral
testimony of prosecution witnesses and merely on the
ground that P.W.1 having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution did not cause any serious dent to the case of the
prosecution, inasmuch as there was explanation whatsoever
forthcoming from the revision petitioners at the time of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
recording the accused statement and rightly convicted the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
18.6 However, the prosecution evidence was not
sufficient to establish that there was a wrongful loss caused
to the Government and wrongful gain to the revision
petitioners and other accused persons, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC.
18.7 It is pertinent to note that the State did not
challenge the acquittal of the revision petitioners and other
accused person for the offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC and therefore, it became final insofar as the State is
concerned.
18.8 It is revision petitioners and second accused -
Kamalabai who filed the appeals as aforesaid before the
District Court.
18.9 Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments in detail and on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
re-appreciation of the material evidence especially in the
light of the ingredients required to be established by the
prosecution and critically analyzed the material evidence on
record and has recorded a categorical finding that revision
petitioners are guilty of the aforesaid offences, not only
appreciating the reasons assigned by the learned trial
Magistrate but also supplemented additional reasons for
confirming the order of conviction and sentence.
18.10. This Court having regard to the limited
powers vested in it under the revisional jurisdiction, following
the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit
Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in
(2012) 9 SCC 460, reconsidered reasons assigned by both
the Courts while connecting the revision petitioners for the
aforesaid offences and is convinced that there is no patent
factual error nor error of jurisdiction exercised by the trial
Judge as well as by the learned Judge of the first appellate
Court, the conviction order recorded by the trial Magistrate,
confirmed by the first appellate Court needs no interference
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
in this revision petition. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are
answered in the affirmative and negative, respectively.
19. Regarding Point No.3:
19.1. Admittedly, the revision petitioners are the first
time offenders. The offences for which the conviction has
been recorded by the trial Magistrate, the trial Judge ought
to have considered for grant of probation by calling
necessary report from the Probation Officer.
19.2 It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that role of a Judge while recording an order of
conviction is all together different from role of Judge who is
required to pass appropriate sentence in a given case.
19.3. Consideration of grant of probation is
mandatory duty of a Judge who convicts an accused who is
the first time offender.
19.4. In the case on hand, since such a course has
not been adopted by the learned trial Judge, this Court can
definitely reconsider the stand taken by the revision
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
petitioners with regard to showing leniency or granting
probation.
19.5 Unfortunately, the learned Judge in the first
appellate Court also did not bestow its attention in this
regard. Calling for the report from the probation Officer at
this distance of time, would only result in futile exercise.
19.6. The incident is of the year 2010. Further, the
accused No.4 is already died and therefore, the case against
the accused No.4 is abated. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are ladies.
19.7 Therefore, for the proved offence, if the
custody period already undergone if treated as a period of
imprisonment and they are directed to pay enhanced fine
amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, by the revision
petitioners and remaining portion of the sentence if set
aside, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3
is answered in partly-affirmative.
20. The petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.200015/2021
namely - Gundu Rao Kulkarni, had the benefit of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
anticipatory bail and therefore, no custody period has been
spent by him.
21. Taking note of the fact the petitioner is the only
bread earner who had lost his father and has a age old
mother to lookafter; directing the petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court and to
pay Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
22. Regarding Point No.4.
22.1. In view of the finding of this Court on point
No.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed in part,
while maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioner for the offences under Sections 465,
468 and 471 of IPC petitioner is directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a day till the
rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- (50,000 + 6,000 =
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
Rs.56,000/-) for the proved offences on or before
15.07.2025.
(ii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine
amount by the revision petitioner, the order of
the Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first
Appellate Court stands restored automatically.
ORDER
IN CRL.R.P. Nos.200078/2020 &
(i) The revision petitions are allowed in
part, while maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC, the custody
period already undergone by the revision
petitioners is treated as period of imprisonment
by directing the accused-revision petitioners who
are accused Nos.1 and 3, to pay enhanced fine of
amount of Rs.50,000/- each for the proved
offences on or before 15.07.2025;
(ii) Failing to pay the enhanced fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- i.e. (Rs.3,000/- +
Rs.3,000/- = Rs.6,000/- + Rs.50,000/-
(enhanced fine amount) = Rs.56,000/-) by each
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3087
HC-KAR
of the accused/revision petitioners, the order of
the trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned first
Appellate Court would stand restored
automatically;
The office is directed to return the trial Court records
with copy of this order, forthwith, for the purpose of issue of
modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
