Karnataka High Court
Pramod S/O Mohan Shet vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
CRL.RP No. 100172 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100172 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
PRAMOD S/O. MOHAN SHET,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NUTAN NAGAR, YELLAPUR,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581359.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.A. BHANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD -580010,
(THROUGH POLICE STATION, YELLAPUR, U.K)
Digitally
signed by ...RESPONDENT
VN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
2025.03.21
10:35:00
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397
R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE
COURTS BELOW AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 5037/2022 DATED 22.02.2023
BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR,
SITTING AT SIRSI BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN
C.C.NO. 373/2015, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
YELLAPUR, DATED 19.04.2022, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/SEC. 411 AND 201 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO.
3/PETITIONER AND ORDER TO REFUND THE FINE AMOUNT
DEPOSITED BY THE ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
CRL.RP No. 100172 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Accused No.3 who has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 201 and 411 of IPC in CC
No.373/2015 dated 19.04.2022 which was confirmed in
Crl.A.No.5037/2022 dated 22.02.2023 is the revision petitioner.
2. Facts in the nut shell which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
2.1. A complaint came to be lodged alleging that on
07.07.2014 between 5.00 p.m. to 7.30 a.m. of 08.07.2014 in
Udyama Nagar, within the limits of Yellapura Police Station,
accused Nos.1 and 2 forcibly broke open the lock of the front
door of the house of the complainant. Thereafter, gained entry
inside the house of the complainant and forcibly broke open the
lock of steel Almirah and thieved the gold chain weighing 9.580
grams, silver articles and cash. Later on, those ornaments
were sold to the present revision petitioner.
2.2. Investigation agency issued notice to produce the
ornaments which were sold to the revision petitioner by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
other accused persons. But revision petitioner not only failed
to do so but also converted the ornaments into solid gold mass
by melting the ornaments. Thereby, accused No.3 who is the
present revision petitioner is accused of offences punishable
under Section 201 and 411 of IPC.
2.2. After registering the case, matter was thoroughly
investigated by the police inter alia and arrested accused Nos.1
and 2 and based on their voluntary statement, thieved gold
articles were seized from the custody of the revision petitioner
and filed the charge sheet.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance of the
offences alleged against the accused persons were taken and
secured the presence of the accused persons. Thereafter,
learned Trial Judge framed the charges which were denied by
accused persons.
4. Thereafter, trial was held and after due trial,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and present revision
petitioner being accused No.3 was convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 201 and 411 of IPC and ordered to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay
fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- for each offence.
5. Being aggrieved by said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, revision petitioner filed an appeal before the
First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5037/2022.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in
detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, found
that the conviction of the accused is based on sound and logical
reasons. Therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision
petitioner and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused No.3
is before this Court, in this revision petition.
8. Sri.D.A.Bhandekar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition
vehemently contended that conviction of the revision petitioner
by both the Courts has resulted in miscarriage of justice and
voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not sufficient
enough to conclude the offence under Section 201 and 411 of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
IPC as against the revision petitioner and thus, sought for
allowing the revision petition.
9. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event,
this Court, upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the
fact that in the same transactions, five different FIRs came to
be filed by the police and in all the five cases, accused has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC
though he has only got the ornaments pledged with him by the
accused persons believing that it is the property of accused
Nos.1 and 2, he has lent the money which has not been taken
note of by the investigation officer on account of previous
enmity that existed between the revision petitioner and the
investigation officer as the revision petitioner and other gold
merchants have made a protest against the investigation
officer.
10. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment may be set
aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
11. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned
High Court Government Pleader submits that material on record
is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the revision
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 201 and
411 of IPC and so also, the material on record would indicate
that the revision petitioner is an habitual in receiving the stolen
articles.
12. As such, no mercy can be shown insofar as the
revision petitioner is concerned and thus, sought for dismissal
of the revision petition.
13. He would further contend that recovery of the
stolen articles from the custody of the revision petitioner itself
conclude the offences under Section 201 and 411 of IPC in the
absence of any plausible explanation offered by the revision
petitioner and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the stolen articles which were converted into
sold mass of gold by melting the stolen ornaments was
recovered from the custody of the revision petitioner under the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
panchanama which has been established by placing cogent and
convincing evidence on record before the learned Trial Judge.
16. Admittedly, the revision petitioner could not place
any material evidence on record to establish the ownership
over the said solid mass of gold which was recovered from his
custody.
17. Whenever the stolen articles are received from the
custody of the revision petitioner and if there is no proper
explanation offered by the revision petitioner, the prosecution
would be entitled for an order of conviction as against the
revision petitioner.
18. Further, material on record would sufficiently
establish that the seized stolen articles have been identified by
its owner and the description given by the complainant would
tally with the recovered articles.
19. Moreover, no proper explanation is offered by the
revision petitioner at the time of accused statement except
denying the incriminatory materials.
20. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, this
Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
rightly appreciated and reappreicated the material evidence on
record while convicting the revision petitioner for the offences
punishable under Section 201 and 411 of IPC.
21. However, in respect of same transactions of theft,
five different FIRs came to be filed by the Yellapur Police and in
all the five cases, charge sheet came to be filed and revision
petitioner has been convicted.
22. Taking note of the same, this Court is of the
considered opinion that revision petitioner must be treated as
first time offender and he is entitled for order of probation.
23. However, calling for the report from the Probation
Officer at this distance of time and only for that purpose,
remitting the matter to the Trial Court would result in futile
exercise.
24. Revision petitioner is also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC. What exactly is the
evidence that has been effaced is also spelt put in the form of
converting the jewels into solid gold mass.
25. Ends of justice would be served by directing the
revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4607
till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.35,000/-.
26. Accordingly, from the above discussion, following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioner/accused No.3, for the offences
punishable under Section 201 and 411 of IPC,
sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned
Trial Judge is modified as under:
a. Revision petitioner is directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for the day till rising of
the Court.
b. Revision petitioner is ordered to pay enhanced
fine amount of Rs.35,000/-.
iii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay
the enhanced fine amount till 30.03.2025 failing
which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for further period of one year.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with
copy of this order forthwith.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
