[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Syed Ikramuddin @ Syed Naveed vs National Investigation Agency on 20 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2142 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SYED IKRAMUDDIN @ SYED NAVEED
S/O SYED JAMALUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO. 5/3, KUSHAL NAGAR
5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
HANIFIYA MASJID ROAD
KG HALLI BANGALORE 560 045
2. SYED ASIF
S/O SYED AKBAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
by DEVIKA M R/O NO. 119/1 11TH CROSS
Location: HIGH KG HALLI BM LAYOUT
COURT OF BANGALORE 560 045
KARNATAKA
3. MOHAMMED ATIF
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O NO. 594, 5TH CROSS
BASAA NAGAR KG HALLI
BANGALORE 560 045
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
REP BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.PP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED
IN SPL.CC NO.141/2021 BY THE XLIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR NIA CASES,
BENGALURU, AGAINST THE APPELLANT REDUCED THE
SENTENCE OF THE APPELLANTS FROM 7 YEARS TO THE
MINIMUM 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT U/S 120B, 143, 144, 145,
148, 153A, 188, 353, 427, R/W 149 OF IPC, SEC.2 OF THE
KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF
PROPERTY ACT AND 16, 18 AND 20 OF UA(P)A ACT, WHILE
MAINTAINING THE CONVICTION. THE ACCUSED NOS. 14, 16
AND 18 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) YEARS AND ARE
LIABLE TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B OF THE IPC. IN DEFAULT
OF PAYMENT OF THE FINE, THEY SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The order challenged before this Court is dated
08.07.2025, wherein accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 have filed an
application under Section 229 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') to plead guilty and the same was
allowed by the trial Court. After allowing the same, the trial
Court passed an order to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section
120B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC') and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act of 1967')
with fine; simple imprisonment for a period of six months for
the offence punishable under Sections 143, 188 read with
Section 149 of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of two
years for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 145,
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
HC-KAR
147, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC with fine; simple
imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence
punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC and
Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss
of Property Act, 1981 with fine and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years for the offence punishable under Section
435 read with Section 149 of IPC with fine.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the appellants have voluntarily made
an application to plead the guilty. However, it is contended that
the Trial Court has imposed seven years of imprisonment
whereas Section 16 and 18 of the Act of 1967 prescribes
minimum 5 years, thus, the punishment is exorbitant. The
counsel also would submit that the same can be reduced when
minimum sentence is 5 years for the offences punishable under
Sections 16 and 18 of the Act of 1967. The counsel also would
submit that 7 years rigorous imprisonment is exorbitant when
the minimum sentence is prescribed for the said offences i.e., 5
years when also they voluntarily pleaded guilty. The said fact
has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court on the
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
HC-KAR
ground of socio-economic background and also the family
responsibilities.
4. The counsel appearing to the respondent would
submit that the Trial Court has taken note of gravity of the
offences wherein it is a mob fury and also contend that even
though minimum sentence is 5 years for the said offences but it
is the discretion of the Court to impose sentence and the Trial
Court taking into note of the gravity of the offences, imposed
imprisonment for a period of seven years.
5. In reply to this argument, counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that the appellants have already
undergone a sentence for a period of five years three months
and the same has to be modified to six years. The counsel
appearing for the respondent opposes the said submission.
6. Having taken note of the submission of respective
counsel and also on perusal of the order impugned, it is very
clear that the appellants have voluntarily made the application
for pleading guilty and the same was considered by the Trial
Court. When the appellants have approached the Trial Court for
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
HC-KAR
pleading guilty, the same is explained to the accused and the
same is noted in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Trial
Court as accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 and the SPP were present
before the Court and Court explained the consequences of
pleading guilty to accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 and the said
accused persons prays time to think over and submit on
24.06.2025 in respect of the application filed by them under
Section 229 of Cr.P.C. and hence, directed to produce them on
24.06.2025. On that day also, the Trial Court explained the
same and even asked the said accused and the same has been
narrated in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Trial Court
that the charges levelled against them and Court's power also
explained and after hearing, the Trial Court made understand
the consequences of pleading guilty to accused Nos.14, 16 and
18 who are the appellants herein who voluntarily made
submission that they are ready to plead guilty for the charges
levelled against them. Having considered this aspect into
consideration, in paragraph 15, the Trial Court satisfied that the
accused have unconditionally admitted the acts committed by
them and they voluntarily come forward to plead guilty to the
charges levelled against them and also taken note of the
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
HC-KAR
offences which have been invoked against them and imposed
the sentence of seven years.
7. Having considered the materials available on record
and the submission and also the punishment for terrorist act
under Section 16 of the Act of 1967 wherein Section 16(b) is
very clear that be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine and so also
in respect of Section 18 of the Act of 1967 is concerned, shall
not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine and so also
in Section 17 of the Act of 1967 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine. But no minimum sentence is
prescribed under Section 20 of the Act of 1967. However,
taking into note of the application filed under Section 229 of
Cr.P.C. as well as the reasons pointed out, the Trial Court taken
note of the relevant provisions when the accused persons
voluntarily came up before the Trial Court without insisting for
trial and voluntarily ready for pleading guilty. Hence, the Trial
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
HC-KAR
Court ought to have taken note of Sections 16 and 18 of the
Act of 1967. However, in Section 20 of the Act of 1967, no
minimum sentence is prescribed but it is stated that shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
imprisonment for life that means, it may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Having
taken note of the factual aspects of the case wherein it was a
mob fury and such incident was taken place, it is appropriate to
modify the order of sentence for a period of six years instead of
seven years in keeping in view of the very aspect of pleading
guilty and the pleading of guilty is to get the benefit of
minimum sentence and no modification with regard to the fine
is concerned. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
