Karnataka High Court
Hanamantappa S/O Hanamantappa Talawar vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
CRL.RP No. 100216 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100216 OF 2017
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HANAMANTAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA TALAWAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: AGRAHAR,
TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
Digitally
signed by
VN
...RESPONDENT
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2025.04.02
11:20:25
+0530
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI IN CRL. APPEAL NO.57/2012 AND
ALSO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.11.2012
IN C.C.NO.48 /2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM HAVERI AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER
HEREIN.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
CRL.RP No. 100216 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)
1. Heard Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen
Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent-State.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
C.C.No.48/2010 for the offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code (for
short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for a period of 4 years for the offence punishable under
Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 6 months is
the revision petitioner.
3. Order of conviction and sentence was also
confirmed before the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.57/2012.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
4. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision
petition are as under:
A charge sheet came to be filed against the revision
petitioner and three other accused of which split-up charge
sheet was filed against accused Nos.3 and 4. Charge sheet
material would reveal that one T.D.Rajanna and his wife
Smt.Selvi were cheated by stating they have got old gold
and due to financial problem, they intended to sell the
same.
5. Being the lured by the offered made by the
accused persons, complainant and his wife parted away
sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. When they came to known that
they have been cheated, they approached Haveri Town
Police and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet
against accused persons, interalia arrested the accused
Nos.1 and 2. From the voluntary information given by the
accused No.2, sum of Rs.3,88,600/- was recovered and
the same was given to the interim custody of the
complainant.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
6. After thorough trial, accused was convicted and
sentenced.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.57/2012.
8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
thorough consideration of the material on record, re-
appreciated the material on record and confirmed order of
conviction and sentence.
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused
No.1 has preferred this revision petition.
10. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition, contended that at the instance of accused sum of
Rs.3,88,600/- being recovered, accused/revision petitioner
is now leading a normal life along with his family
members, lenience may be shown by setting aside the
imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposes the submission made on the revision
petitioner by contending that accused No.2 is no doubt
acquitted, but accused Nos.3 and 4 are still absconding
and split-up charge sheet is pending and any order passed
by this Court in this revision petition would affect the trial
of the case as against accused Nos.3 and 4 in the trial
Court and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision
petition in toto.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
Admittedly, case against accused No.2 came to be
acquitted and State did not filed any appeal.
13. Reason for acquittal of accused No.2 is that he
is only receiver of the amount which was actually cheated
by other accused persons and he repaid the same. Hence,
sum of Rs.3,88,600/- which has been shown as recovery
in the charge sheet and the same is also handed over to
the PW.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
14. Fact of cheating would established that by
placing cogent and convincing evidence on record
especially recovery of sum of Rs.3,88,600/- from the
custody of accused No.2.
15. Therefore, the only question that needs to be
now considered by this Court is whether any lenience
could be shown to the petitioner herein who has been
ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period 4 years.
16. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni would submit that
accused is the first time offender and therefore, leniency
can be shown and he his now leading the normal prudent
life with family members by eking out their livelihood by
doing labour and other work. Taking note of the financial
condition of the accused, reasonable fine amount may also
be enhanced, if the submission made on behalf of the
revision petitioner.
17. Per contra, it is the arguments of learned High
Court Government Pleader that same would affect the
intended trial in respect of accused Nos.4 and 3 were
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
against whom the split-up charge sheet is pending. To
quell the Apprehension of the prosecution, suitable
direction can be issued.
18. Taking note of the fact that incident is of the
year 2018, if the petitioner is directed to undergo
imprisonment as ordered by the trial Magistrate and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court would result in
grave hardship. Imposing the enhanced fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- to be payable in 3 equal installments
commencing from 30.04.2025 by setting aside the
imprisonment would meet ends of justice in the given case
and entire enhanced fine amount can be paid as
compensation to the PW.1 as well.
19. Accordingly, in view of the forgoing discussion,
following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioner for the offences
punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the
sentence of 4 years simple imprisonment
ordered by trial Magistrate confirmed by the
First Appellate Court is hereby set aside
directing the accused/revision petitioner to
pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
in three equal installments commencing from
30.04.2025, 30.05.2025 and 31.06.2025
respectively.
(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount
would automatically result in restoration of
the order sentence of imprisonment passed
by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court.
(iv) After the recovery of the fine amount, entire
sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, is order to be paid as
compensation to PW.1 under due
identification.
(v) It is made clear that modification of the
sentence in this revision petition shall not
affect the rights of the prosecution in respect
of the intended trial as against accused
Nos.3 and 4 against whom the split-up
charge sheet is filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5605
(vi) Office to return the Trial Court records along
with a copy of this order for issuance of
modified conviction warrant.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC
ct-cmu
