Karnataka High Court
Aleemuddin @ Aleem Ahmed vs State Through Roza Police Station on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200019 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ALEEMUDDIN @ ALEEM AHMED
S/O IRSHAD AHMED,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. JALAL WADI ROZA NOOR-BAAG ROZA (B),
NOW AT. SAIDABAD,
MADINAPETH MANDI HYDERABAD- 500003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH STATE THROUGH ROZA POLICE STATION,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
REP. BY ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.01.2021 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.71/2019 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.3778/2010
THEREBY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NO.3 APPELLANT HEREIN
AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
CRL.RP No. 200019 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The petitioner being accused No.3 in
C.C.No.3778/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short 'Trial Court') is
impugning the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 05.10.2019, convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
sentence, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.71/2019 on the file of the learned III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as
'First Appellate Court') by dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that,
PW.1 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 3
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
as per Ex.P1, alleging commission of offence punishable
under Section 420 of IPC. It is contended by the informant
that, accused No.3 was the pigmy collector for Sahara
India Pariwar for several years and he gained confidence
of PW.1 and other investors. When PW.1 had been to
Sahara India Pariwar, accused No.1 along with accused
Nos.2 and 3 induced him to invest in the business of
accused No.1, projecting him as an importer and exporter.
3. During April 2004, accused No.3 came along
with accused Nos.1 and 2 to the house of PW.1 and
induced him to deposit the amount in the business of
accused No.1. Accordingly, PW.1 invested Rs.5,00,000/-
on 08.04.2004. On enquiry, accused No.1 informed that
he is the resident of Kalaburagi, accused No.3 is his
brother-in-law and all the accused have undertaken to pay
a lucrative return of Rs.4,000/- per month for the deposit
of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Accordingly, an agreement was
entered into. When PW.1 invested Rs.5,00,000/-, accused
No.1 had issued five cheques drawn on Punjab National
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
Bank, without mentioning the date. Initially, for 4 to 5
months, the accused have paid the amount promptly.
Believing them, PW.1 again deposited further amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- and the accused issued two cheques of
Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda. Subsequently,
neither the principal amount nor any returns were paid by
accused Nos.1 to 3. Thereby, they have cheated.
Accordingly, the first information came to be registered.
During investigation, accused No.3 who is the appellant
herein was apprehended, accused Nos.1 and 2 were
absconding and accordingly final report came to be filed
against accused No.3. It is stated that, accused Nos.1 and
2 are still absconding and a split-up charge sheet is filed
against them.
4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, registered
the criminal case and summoned the accused. The
accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 29 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P184. The accused has denied all
the incriminating materials available on record, but he has
not led any evidence in support of his defence.
5. The Trial Court after taking into consideration
all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that
the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the
accused for the aforesaid offence and accordingly,
convicted and sentenced accused No.3 as stated above.
Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred
appeal in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019. The First Appellate
Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record,
confirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner/accused No.3 has
preferred this revision petition.
6. Heard Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the
First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities
and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for
the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that,
accused No.3 along with accused Nos.1 and 2 induced
PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29 to invest the money in the so
called business of import and export of accused No.1 by
promising to give the profit and thereby obtained in all
Rs.41,80,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed an
agreement for repayment of the money and cheated them
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
thereby committed the offence under Section 420 r/w 34
of IPC.
9. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution
examined PWs-1 to 17, 27 and 29, who are the investors
and all these witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. It is deposed by these witnesses that,
accused No.3 was the pigmy collector on behalf of Sahara
India Pariwar from 1998 to 2005 and thereby he gained
confidence of the investors. Accused No.2 is the brother of
accused No.3 and accused No.1 is the husband of accused
No.2. Taking advantage of the position that accused No.3
being the pigmy collector for over 7 years, and had gained
confidence in the mind of the investors, accused Nos.1 to
3 together approached them inducing that accused No.1,
is an importer and exporter and if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
is invested they will get Rs.4,000/- as profit per month.
Believing the words of accused Nos.1 to 3, all these
investors have invested in all Rs.41,80,000/-. Accused
Nos.1 and 2 have executed an agreement, on demand
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
promissory note and a consent letter. Accused No.1 also
issued the cheques to make believe the investors that he
is carrying a genuine business. Later, the accused had
collected all these cheques.
10. It is the contention of the prosecution that
initially for few months, profit of Rs.4,000/- per month for
Rs.1,00,000/- each was paid and later neither the principal
amount nor the interest was paid and thereby the accused
committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC r/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court on appreciation of all
the evidence of the investors, convicted accused No.3 for
the aforesaid offence. The First Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the materials on record confirmed the said
judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being
aggrieved by the same, petitioner-accused No.3 is before
this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that in none of the documents, accused No3 is the
signatory. He never executed any demand promissory
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
note nor issued any cheques. Under such circumstances,
there is no nexus between the offence in question and the
present petitioner. No materials have placed before the
Court to substantiate the fact that accused No.3 had
accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of
collecting the amount. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are still
absconding and accused No.3 has appeared before the
Investigating Officer. Therefore, no offence as alleged
could be attributable to the present petitioner. The Trial
Court committed an error in convicting the accused No.3
without there being any material on record against him.
Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
12. Even though accused No.3 is not a signatory to
any of the documents that are produced before the Court,
PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29 being the investors have
specifically deposed on oath about the role played by the
present petitioner/accused No.3. It is specifically stated
that, he was the pigmy collector for Sahara India Pariwar
from 1998 till 2005. The investors who are the pigmy
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
depositors had faith in accused No.3. Taking undue
advantage of the situation, where the investors believed in
accused No.3, he, in collusion with accused No.2 who is his
sister and accused No.1 who is his brother-in-law induced
the investors to invest the money with accused No.1
projecting him as a businessmen doing import and export.
Even though the documents were signed by accused Nos.1
and 2 and none of the documents were signed by accused
No.3, it does not mean to say that the petitioner has not
committed any cheating. I do not find any reason to
disbelieve the version of PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29, who
consistently deposed regarding the cheating committed by
accused No.3. The materials on record disclose that, if not
for the accused No.3, who had gained confidence of the
investors as a pigmy collector over a period of 7 years, the
investors would not have paid the amount to accused
No.1.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since accused No.3 is not a signatory to any
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
of the agreement produced by the prosecution, he cannot
be held responsible for the offence punishable under
Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, cannot be accepted. It is not a
civil suit for recovery of money against accused No.3, to
contend that he is not a signatory to the agreement and
therefore he is not liable to pay the money. It is the
criminal proceeding alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, where all the
investors consistently deposed about the role played by
petitioner/accused No.3. Hence, there are absolutely no
reasons to disbelieve their version.
14. It is pertinent to note that, during cross-
examination of PWs.1 to 17, 27 and 29, there is denial by
accused No.3 that he had not approached the investors
and they had not paid the amount to accused No.3. All
these suggestions were denied by the witnesses to
contend that money by the investors was collected by
accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.3 has not stepped into the
witness box to depose about his defence. Under such
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5419
HC-KAR
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and he is liable for conviction.
15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
as well as by the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts
have consistently considered the materials on record and
have arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer
the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
