Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mohammad S/O Allisab Sheikh on 6 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100229 OF 2017
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD S/O. ALLISAB SHEIKH,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.
2. SMT.JAINABBI KOM MAHAMMAD
@ MAHAMMAD ISAQ SHEIKH,
AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
MALLIKARJUN
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Date:
3. DIWANSAB HAYATSAB YERAJARI
2025.03.12
16:56:25
+0530 AGE: 61 YEARS, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
V/O DATED 11.03.2024 REVISION PETITION AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 (3) READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO RE-EXMINE THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND
EXAMINE THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF BOTH THE COURTS PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ALSO IN C.C.NO.
1044 OF 2007 AND 261 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC,
DHARWAD AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 120-B
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi and Sri.Praveen Y.
Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for the parties.
2. State has filed the present revision petition
challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned
trial judge in CC No.1044/2007 and CC No.261/2011
confirming Crl.A.No.108/2015 for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 120-B R/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. Gist of the factual aspects which are utmost
necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as
under:
3.1 Accused No.3 Diwansab being the owner of Oil
Refinery was the customer of Hubballi Urban Co-operative
Bank who had a regular banking transaction. Accused No.1
Mohammad S/o Allisab sheikh, accused No.2 Smt.Jainabi
being the residents of Heravatta village were introduced
by the 3rd accused to the complainant-Bank and he wanted
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
to obtain loan by pledging the immovable property bearing
Sy.No.263, Plot No.110 and 111 measuring 4039 sq.
mtrs., and obtained a loan.
3.2 Later on, it is reveled that the guarantee
furnished by the accused persons was not free from
encumbrance and there was deficiency in the title. When
the same was noticed, a complaint came to be lodged by
the Bank with Sub-urban Police Station, Dharwad who
have in turn registered a case in Crime No.CEP NO.
46/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
465 r/w Section 120B of IPC.
4. After the investigation charge sheet came to be
filed and respondent stood for trial.
5. After due trial, learned trial Magistrate noticed
that the material evidence are not sufficient to prove the
charges leveled against the respondents and therefore
acquitted the accused by order dated 02.06.2015.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
6. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal came to
be filed by the state against the order of acquittal in
Crl.A.108/2015.
7. Learned judge in the first appellate Court
secured the records after hearing the arguments of the
parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds, re-
appreciated the material on record and dismissed the
appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, State has
filed the present revision petition challenging the order of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge and confirmed
by the first appellate court.
9. Sri.Praveena Y Devaraddiavara, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in
the revision petition vehemently contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material
evidence on record. Especially when the offence under
Section 420, 465 and 120B is alleged against the accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
persons and material evidence on record would go to show
that there was a fraudulent document which was furnished
for obtaining the loan to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs and
therefore sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for
the accused-respondents No.1 and 2 (3rd accused is no
more) supports the impugned orders.
11. Having heard the arguments in detail, this
Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, the following points
would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the revision petitioner-State would make
out the case both the impugned judgments are
suffering from legal infirmity and perversity
besides suffering from patent factual errors so as
to call for interference in its revisional jurisdiction?
2) If so, what is the appropriate sentence?
3) What order?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
Points No.1 and 2 :
12. In the case on hand, in order to prove the
charges leveled against the accused, prosecution
proceeded to examine seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7.
Among them, PW1 is the Manger of the bank viz., Anand
Ranga Rao Joshi, PW.2-Anand Pathrota, PW.3-Gurunath
Guddappanavar, PW.4-Sanjeev Kulkarni, PW.5-
K.Y.Doddamani, PW.6-S.S.Nagatana and PW.7-
M.Y.Muppinamath are the other witnesses.
13. Case of the prosecution predominantly hinged
on documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence of
the parties. According to the case of the prosecution, 3rd
accused (who is no more) introduced the accused Nos.1
and 2 to the Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank for obtaining
the financial assistance to the tune of rupees 22 lakhs.
14. Documents pertaining to the plot bearing
Nos.110 and 111 in Sy.No.263 of Belur Industrial area was
given as security for the said loan. It is the case of the
prosecution that the security was a fake security.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
15. In order to establish the same, there is no
positive evidence placed on record by the prosecution and
more over entire loan amount is repaid and there is no
wrongful loss caused to the Bank and corresponding
wrongful gain to the respondents.
16. Under such circumstances, ingredients required
to attract the offences under Section 420 of IPC is not
made out in the opinion of the learned trial judge which
has been affirmed by the learned judge in the first
appellate Court.
17. Insofar as offence under Section 465 of IPC is
concerned, material evidence are hardly sufficient to
record an order of conviction is the opinion formed by trial
Court. Therefore, order of acquittal passed by the learned
trial judge was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
18. It is settled principles of law and require no
emphasis that an order of acquittal recorded by a duly
constituted Court would reinforce the innocence of the
accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
19. Since the accused have been acquitted by the
learned trial Judge which has been confirmed by the first
appellate Court, respondents would now are clothed with
not double innocence but triple innocence.
20. In a matter of this nature, the degree of proof
that is required to be placed by the prosecution is beyond
reasonable doubt and only on suspicion, no conviction is
permissible.
21. It is equally settled principles of law that any
amount of suspicion would not take the seat of proof and if
two views are permissible on the given set of facts and
circumstances, the view that favours the accused must be
preferred and not the view that favours the prosecution.
22. Applying these celebrated principles of law to
the case on hand, since there is an order of acquittal
which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court, in
the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate
the material evidence on record so as to hold that the
impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371
perversity. No patent factual error is also brought to the
notice of this Court by the State.
23. Under such circumstances, point No.1 is
answered in the negative. Consequently, point No.2 would
not arise for consideration.
Point No.3.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion and
recording of finding on point Nos.1 and 2, the following
order is passed.
ORDER
Revision Petition is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
Bail bonds if any, stands discharged.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
HMB
CT:PA
