Sri.Ravindranath Shinde vs Sri.Shankarappa
2025 Latest Caselaw 5137 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Ravindranath Shinde vs Sri.Shankarappa on 18 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                       -1-
                                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960
                                                             CRL.RP No. 100281 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                                     BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100281 OF 2016
                                          (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                     BETWEEN:
                     SRI. RAVINDRANATH SHINDE,
                     AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
                     C/O. 656, 1ST BLOCK,
                     NOW AT RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                     (BY SRI GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

                     AND:

                     SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O. BASAPPA CHANDAKOL,
                     AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                     R/O. ATTIGERI, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI.

                     AS PER ORDER DATED COMPLAINANT IS DECEASED
                     ON 17.01.2023

        Digitally
        signed by
                     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VN
        VN
        BADIGER      REP. BY ADDL. SPP.,
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.27   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
        10:44:54
        +0530        DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                                                         ...RESPONDENT
                     (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                     SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
                     JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.07.2014 PASSED
                     BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                     FIRST CLASS AT SHIGGAON IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.69 OF 2010 AND
                     THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.08.2016 PASSED BY THE
                     COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT:
                     HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2014 AND ACQUIT THE
                     PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465 AND 193
                     OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

                          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON              FOR
                     HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960
                                      CRL.RP No. 100281 of 2016




                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for

revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for

the offence punishable under Section 420, 465 and 193 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and ordered

to undergo one and half years rigorous imprisonment for

the highest offence under Section 420 of IPC confirmed in

Crl.A.No.37/2014, is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are as

under:

A private complaint came to be lodged under Section

200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 193 of IPC by

contending that on 05.09.2004 against the accused for the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act').

3.1 During the course of defence evidence in the

said trial, revision petitioner produced an endorsement

said to have given by the Cubbon Park Police Station,

Bangalore, whereunder, the revision petitioner said to

have lodged a complaint with them stating that he lost the

check in question. On further enquiry, it is noticed that the

endorsement is a forged endorsement and the same has

been relied upon by the revision petitioner as defence

evidence in the said prosecution under Section 138 N.I.

Act.

3.2 Learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance,

summoned the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. Trial

was held. After due trial, it was noticed that the

endorsement produced and relied upon by the revision

petitioner which is said to have been issued by Cubbon

Park Police Station, is a fake endorsement and the

signature therein was a forged signature. Therefore,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 420,

465 and 193 of IPC and sentenced as under:

"Acting under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code the accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 420, 465 and 193 of Indian Penal Code.

Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ Year and to pay fine a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian penal Code. In default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 465 of Indian penal Code. In default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 Year and to pay fine a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 193 of Indian penal Code. In default of payment of fine accused

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.

Since the accused is also convicted in C.C.No.277/2004. The punishment in both the cases shall run concurrently.

The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.

Furnish free copy of the further judgment to the accused.

Issue conviction warrant."

4. Being approved by same, accused filed an

appeal before the District Court.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties

in detail and confirmed the order of the Trial Magistrate.

6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

before this Court in this revision petition.

7. Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in

the petition contended that accused is innocent and he is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

not guilty of producing a fake endorsement, which has not

been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and sought

for allowing revision petition.

8. Alternatively, he would submit that since the

entire amount covered under the cheque plus additional

amount has been paid by the accused to the complainant.

The dispute with regard to offence under 138 N.I. Act is

duly settled and thereafter the complainant has proceeded

in this case, which is incorrect and therefore, sought for

showing some leniency.

9. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

supports impugned order by contending that after due

trial, accused has been convicted and a factual finding has

been recorded that the endorsement is said to have been

given by Cubbon Park Police, Bangalore, is a fake

endorsement.

10. He further contended that no mercy can be

shown for such people as it would encourage the similarly

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

placed perpetrators of crime to commit such offences in

future. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the revision

petition in toto.

11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides

in detail, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

established by the prosecution that the endorsement that

is not to be relied upon by the accused before the Trial

Court in a proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is

a fake endorsement. Therefore, conviction needs no

interference.

13. However, taking note of the fact that the civil

dispute under Section 138 of N.I. Act is duly settled by the

accused by paying extra amount more than double the

cheque amount and also taking note of the fact that

accused is a first time offender and is now prepared to pay

enhanced fine amount in two installments in a sum of

Rs.75,000/-, the sentence of imprisonment if set aside by

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

directing the custody period already undergone by him as

a period of sentence, ends of justice would be met.

14. Accordingly, following order is passed.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 193 of IPC, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as the period of imprisonment by directing him to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- in two installments.

(iii) First installment of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid on or before 30.04.2025 and second installment of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid on or before 30.05.2025.

(iv) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the Trial Magistrate.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4960

Office is directed to return the Trial Court records

with a copy of this order for issuing the modified

conviction order.

SD/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

NAA CT:UMD