[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Paramagouda Veeranagouda ... vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100360 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI PARAMAGOUDA VEERANAGOUDA TEMBADAMANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DSIT: HAVERI - 581 205.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SHIGGAON POLICE
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
CRL.APPEAL NO.137/2018 DATED 20.07.2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
Dharwad Bench.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND IN C.C.NO.383/2010
DATED 05.09.2018 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SHIGGAON AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 20.07.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HAVERI PASSED IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 137/2018 AND
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SHIGGAON PASSED IN C.C.NO. 383/2010 DATED 05.09.2018,
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 380 AND
465 OF IPC AND PETITIONER/ACCUSED BE ACQUITTED FOR THE SAID
OFFENCES BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION 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 V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for revision
petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Accused in C.C.No.383/2010 convicted for the
offence under Section 380 and 465 IPC confirmed in Criminal
Appeal No.137/2018 is the revision petitioner.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came
to be filed before the J.M.F.C., Shiggaon in P.C.No.6/2008, which
was referred to the police and police after thorough
investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 380, 463, 465 IPC.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
3.2 Gist of the charge sheet material would go to show
that the petitioner has thieved a cheque leaf and misused the
same.
3.3 Presence of the accused was secured before the trial
Magistrate and plea of charges were framed.
3.4 Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution
examined ten witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and placed on record
nine documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1
to D9.
3.5 Thereafter, accused's statement as is contemplated
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused denied
all the incriminating circumstances and thereafter, examined
himself as DW1 and placed on record twelve documents which
were marked as Exhibits D1 to D12.
3.6 Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments
of the parties and convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 380 and 465 IPC.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
3.7 Validity of the said conviction judgment and order of
sentence was challenged before the District Court in Criminal
Appeal No.137/2018.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and
discussed the material evidence on record in detail and re-
appreciated the same and also took into consideration the oral
testimony of DW1, wherein he has stated that there was a loan
transaction in a sum of ₹7,30,000/- and thereafter, upheld the
order of conviction noting that expert opinion with regard to the
signature is a forged signature, dismissed the appeal of the
accused.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is
before this Court in this revision.
6. Sri V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently
contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated
the material on record especially failed to consider the defence
evidence in proper perspective and based on surmises and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
conjectures recorded in order of conviction resulting in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision
petition.
7. Alternatively, Sri V.M.Banakar would contend that in
the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, mercy
may be shown to the petitioner who is a retired teacher and by
setting aside the imprisonment, fine may be enhanced
reasonably and sought for allowing the revision.
8. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader would support the impugned judgment.
9. She would further contend that material evidence
placed on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence
evidence, the expert opinion with regard to the disputed
signature would conclusively establish the offence alleged against
the petitioner and recovery of the thieved cheque is sufficient
enough to conclude the offence punishable under Section 380
and 465 IPC which requires no interference by this Court that too
in the revisional jurisdiction.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
10. She would further contend that no lenience can be
shown to such people who have misused the cheque and
misused the same and showing any lenience would encourage
the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and thus sought for
dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material available on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material available on record, it
is crystal clear that both the Courts have taken into consideration
the material evidence placed on record in proper perspective.
13. It is the contention of the accused that complainant
is a businessman having business in iron and cement and he had
borrowed sum of ₹7,30,000/- and when accused has approached
the complainant to repay the amount, he postponed the payment
of the same and issued a cheque. Thereafter, the same was
presented for collection which was dishonored and accused filed
a cheque bounce case in C.C.No.451/2016.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
14. As a retaliation to said action, a false complaint came
to be filed against the petitioner herein and therefore, the entire
allegations levelled against the accused is incorrect.
15. However, such a defence was not probabilised by
placing material evidence on record. Expert opinion received
during the investigation is placed on record and learned trial
Judge did take into consideration the expert opinion and noting
the fact that cross-examination of the expert did not yield any
positive result about forging of the signature in the disputed
cheque convicted the accused.
16. These aspects of the matter would make it clear that
when accused has taken a defence that it was tendered towards
the repayment of the loan and failed in prosecuting the
complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the allegations levelled against the
accused that he thieved the cheque and misused the same has
been established by the prosecution by placing appropriate
material evidence on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
17. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, order of
the conviction is just and proper and requires no interference in
the revisional jurisdiction.
18. Having said so, it is noted that accused is a retired
teacher and there is no other criminal antecedent. In other
words, accused is a first time offender. If it is so, he was entitled
for the benefit of probation before the learned trial Magistrate
itself.
19. Learned trial Magistrate has recorded reason that if
the petitioner is granted the benefit of probation, it would send a
wrong signal to the society.
20. Admittedly, the lis is between two private parties.
Therefore, the learned trial Magistrate ought to have taken into
consideration the beneficial piece of legislation under the
provision of Offender's Act, learned Judge in the First Appellate
Court did not raise a point as to the adequacy of the sentence in
the appeal.
21. Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice in the First
Appellate Court in not considering the said aspect of the matter,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
which requires interference in the revisional jurisdiction as there
is error of jurisdictional power on the part of the First Appellate
Court.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion
that while maintaining conviction order, directing the revision
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day and to
pay enhanced fine of ₹25,000/- which can be paid as
compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice.
23. Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 380
and 465 IPC, the imprisonment ordered by the
learned trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court of two years is hereby modified
as under:
a. Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment
for the day till the raising of the Court.
b. Petitioner shall pay enhanced fine amount of
₹25,000/- on or before 25.02.2026.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1583
HC-KAR
c. On receipt of the enhanced fine amount, same
shall be paid as compensation to PW1 under
due identification.
iii. Office is directed to return the trial Court
records with copy of this judgment forthwith for
issue of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31
