[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
B. A. Machaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
CRL.A No. 57 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2018 (C)
BETWEEN:
B.A. MACHAIAH
S/O LATE APPAIAH,
AGED 73 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
R/O PARANE VILLAGE,
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. DIVYA P.B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
AND:
signed by
LAKSHMI T
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
High Court REPRESENTED BY
of Karnataka
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, BANGALORE,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP (P/H))
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 258 R/W 34
OF I.P.C. AND 259 R/W 34 OF I.P.C. AND SECTION 420 OF
I.P.C. AS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
CRL.A No. 57 of 2018
HC-KAR
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI,
KODAGU JUDGMENT DATED 26/12/2017 AND SENTENCE
PASSED ON 26/12/2017 IN CASE NO.S.C.47/99 BY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
In this case, the sole appellant/accused No. 2 is no
more.
2. The learned counsel for appellant has filed a
memo stating that the appellant Sri B.A.Machaiah has
expired on 23.10.2024 and therefore, the cause of action
does not survive for further prosecution of the appeal. In
memo, the learned counsel for appellant has sought to
dispose of the appeal as abated in view of the death of the
appellant. Copy of the death certificate of the appellant is
enclosed along with the memo.
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
3. The memo and the death certificate is taken on
record.
4. This appeal is preferred against the judgment
and order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Court of the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri
in Sessions Case No.47/1999. Vide impugned judgment,
the appellant/accused No.2 has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 258, 259 and 420 of
IPC and acquitted of the offences punishable under Section
255, 256 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 467, 468, 472 and 506
(2) of IPC.
5. Insofar as acquittal of the accused, the State
had preferred Crl.A.No.1208/2018. The said appeal was
dismissed as abated vide judgment dated 16.03.2026.
6. The trial Court while sentencing the
appellant/accused No.2 has also imposed fine.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that accused
No.1 was a resident of Tirunaveli, Tamil Nadu. He
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
prepared the moulds for manufacturing counterfeit stamp
papers and selling the counterfeit stamp papers. Accused
No.2 i.e. the appellant herein is a practicing Advocate in
Madikeri. Since 1995, accused No.1 sold the counterfeit
judicial stamps and non judicial stamp papers through
accused No.2, who was the Secretary of Madikeri Legal
Practitioners Co-operative Society. He sold the counterfeit
stamp papers of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- denominations
through CW2 and CW4, the employees of the said Society
and collected money through them. According to
prosecution, the total face value of the stamp papers sold
by accused Nos.1 and 2 in this manner was
Rs.28,00,000/-. Hence they both cheated the Government
as well as the purchasers of the stamp papers.
8. The fact that accused No.2 was the Secretary of
the Legal Practitioners' Cooperative Society Madikeri from
1986 to 1997 is not in dispute. As per the opinion of the
experts, Rs.5,000/- denomination stamp papers, which are
exhibited as material objects in this case are all counterfeit
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
stamp papers. They contain the signature of accused No.2
above the seal of the President of the Society, behind all
such stamp papers. The stamp papers were sold to the
Society. Accused No.2 being the Secretary was in charge
of the day-to-day administration of the Society. PWs.11 to
122 are the purchasers of the stamp papers from the
Society, which also include the counterfeit stamp papers of
Rs.5,000/- denomination.
9. The learned Sessions Judge while appreciating
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, observed that
the above witnesses have deposed that they have
personally purchased stamp papers for the purpose of
preparing the sale deeds. Further, PW22, PW25, PW46,
PW65, PW91 and PW120 have specifically deposed that
accused No.2 himself issued the stamp papers through the
person in the counter and some of them have also stated
that accused No.2 was affixing the seals and handing over
the same to PW2 or PW4 for issuing the stamp papers. The
sale deeds executed on the stamp papers purchased from
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
the Society are exhibited as MOs.23 to 136 and 158 to
220, which contain the stamp papers of different
denominations including the counterfeit stamp papers of
Rs.5,000/- denomination.
10. The trial Court on an overall appreciation of the
evidence and material on record came to the conclusion
that the material on record only points out towards the
involvement of accused No.2 in procuring and selling
counterfeit stamp papers of Rs.5,000/- denomination in
the Society, through PWs.2 and 4 and there is nothing on
record to even remotely connect PW2, PW4 and PW6 with
the alleged offences. Hence, held that the prosecution has
established the charges framed against accused No.2, for
the offences punishable under Section 258, 259 and 420
of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. In the memo filed by the learned counsel for
appellant, she has sought to dispose of the appeal as
abated in view of the death of the appellant. Having
perused the trial Court records and impugned judgment,
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
we are of the opinion that the fine imposed by the trial
Court for the offences for which the appellant/accused
No.2 is convicted is in accordance with law. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed.
12. The trial court records reveal that the split-up
case against accused No.1 is pending. The learned
Sessions Judge while passing the order of sentence
against the appellant/accused No.2 has made an
observation that the split-up case is not committed for trial
to the Sessions Court and the orders regarding disposal of
the material objects shall be made at the time of disposal
of the said case.
13. In Crl.A.No.1208/2018 preferred by the State,
one Smt.Jayasheela Gangadharan, W/o T.V.Gangadharan,
PW108 preferred an application for release/return of the
original release deed dated 19.11.1996 marked as
MO.122. Since the split-up case against accused No.1 is
pending and in view of the observations made by the trial
Court that the orders regarding disposal of material
NC: 2026:KHC:18693-DB
HC-KAR
objects shall be made at the time of disposal of the said
case, the said applicant Smt.Jayasheela Gangadharan,
W/o T.V.Gangadharan can file necessary application before
the trial Court in the split-up case. If any such application
is filed, the trial Court shall dispose of the same, without
being influenced by the observations made in this order.
It is made clear, we have not expressed any view in
respect of accused No.1.
Registry is directed to send back the records to the
trial Court.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
HB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
