Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gous Mohiddin Maniyar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023
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. 100383 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOUS MOHIDDIN MANIYAR
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O: SHE BAZAR, BANKAPUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581202
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by
VN DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2025.04.03
...RESPONDENT
14:36:30
+0530 (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.
397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2023 IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.155/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR AND C.C.NO. 27/2017 ORDER
DATED 01.12.2018. ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE KARWAR AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.09.2023 IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.155/2018 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE KARWAR WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE KARWAR IN C.C.NO.27/2017 BY ITS ORDER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
CRL.RP No. 100383 of 2023
DATED 01.12.2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 486 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for
revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, by
consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
C.C.No.27/2017 confirmed in Crl.A.No.155/2018 and
ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code, (for short, 'IPC') and simple imprisonment for a
period of two months for the offence under Section 486 of
IPC, is the revision petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
4. Essential facts which are required for disposal of
the present revision petition are as under:
A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner
that on 24.08.2015 at 12:00 noon in Karwar market
behind Lakshmi Complex near Hoovina Chouka, accused
found selling duplicate Rajesh Beedi by cheating the
complainant's Company and thereby committed offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 486 of IPC. After due
trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences and
sentenced as referred to supra.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.155/2018.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides
and on re-appreciation of the material on record,
dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the
order of conviction and sentence.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court.
8. Sri Praveen P. Tarikar, learned counsel for
revision petitioner contended that both the Courts have
grossly erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid
offenses in the absence of proper proof.
9. He would also contend that to establish that it
is the accused who was responsible for duplicating the
design, there is no proper evidence. As such, conviction of
the accused for the office punishable under Section 486 of
IPC is thus impermissible.
10. He would also contend that learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court did not re-appreciate the material on
record in proper manner resulting in miscarriage of justice
and sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Sri Praveen, alternatively would contend that in
the event this Court upholding the order of conviction,
taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
reasonable fine may be imposed by setting aside the
imprisonment and thus sought for allowing the revision
petition.
12. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
opposes the revision grounds and supports impugned
judgments.
13. He would further contend that the very fact that
the accused was selling Rajesh Beedi in front of Prakash
Agencies in Karwar city, which is situated near Hoovina
Chouka behind Lakshmi Complex in the market area of
Karwar itself shows that he was guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC as admittedly the
seized beedi packets were not the original Rajesh beedi.
14. He would further contend that duplication and
counterfeiting the trademark of Rajesh beedi has resulted
in commission of the offence under Section 486 of IPC,
which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
requires no interference by this Court in this revision
petition having regard to the scope of revisional
jurisdiction and sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
15. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned,
Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara contends that in a matter
of this nature, where there is a proved offence, if the
Court shows any mercy or lenience to the revision
petitioner, it would not only send the wrong message to
the society, but also encourages the similarly situated
perpetrators of the crime to indulge in such activities in
future and sought for dismissal of revision petition in toto.
16. Having heard the arguments of both the sides
in detail, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the recovery of the duplicate Rajesh
beedi from the custody of the accused is established by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on
record.
18. Panchanama, whereunder the duplicate beedies
were seized has been established by placing necessary
evidence on record. Admittedly, the seized beedies were
not belonging to Rajesh Beedi Company. Therefore, it was
a duplicate beedi. Further, the trademark that is found on
the beedi packet was not the trademark of Rajesh beedi.
Therefore, necessary ingredients to attract the offence
under Section 486 of IPC also established by placing
cogent and convincing evidence on record.
19. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, no
explanation whatsoever is forthcoming by the accused
while recording the accused statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C.
20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter in a
cumulative matter, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 420
and 486 of IPC.
21. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not
only re-appreciated the material evidence on record but
also supplemented few more reasons to sustain the order
of conviction for the aforesaid offences.
22. Having regard to the limited scope of the
revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments so as to
interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts.
Therefore, conviction needs to be maintained.
23. This would take this Court to the next limb of
argument viz., the appropriate sentence. Shri Praveen
Tarikar contends that the accused is a first time offender
and therefore, mercy can be shown to him.
24. Taking note of the fact that there is no
antecedents to the accused and taking note of the fact
that duplicate beedi is already seized and the circulation of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
duplicate beedi has thus stopped, setting aside the
sentence by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.75,000/- of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be paid
as compensation to the complainant would meet the ends
of justice.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 420
and 486 of IPC, the sentence of imprisonment
of one year for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC and two months for the
offence punishable under Section 486 of IPC is
hereby set aside by directing the accused-
petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount of
Rs.75,000/- on or before 30th April, 2025.
(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount
would automatically result in restoration of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5552
the order of imprisonment ordered by the
Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court.
(iv) Further, out of the fine amount a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid as
compensation to the complainant under due
identification.
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-cmu
