[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Gurusiddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2023
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O CHANNAPPA JEEVANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583232
TQ. YALABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ADUR POLICE STATION, HAVERI,
NOW BY SPP, HIGH COURT ,
DHARWAD-580008.
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.A
NO. 103/2018 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.07.2018 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT HANGAL IN
C.C.NO. 395/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 465, 466, 468, 471,
420 AND 120(b), R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.2 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
CRL.RP No. 100161 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Revision petitioner is accused No.2 who suffered
an order of conviction in C.C. No.395/2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 and
120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one years for the
offence under Section 465 of IPC, two years for the offence
under Section 466 of IPC, two years for the offence under
Section 468 of IPC, two years for the offence under Section
471 of IPC and two years for the offence under Section 420
of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under
Section 120B.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioner filed an appeal before the learned I Additional
For short, 'IPC'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri2 in Criminal Appeal
No.103/2018.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties
and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 04.02.2023.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the
revision petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court in this
revision on following grounds:
"The impugned Judgments and Orders of
Conviction passed by both the Courts are
illegal, capricious and not sustainable in the
eye of Law in as much as same are contrary
to the material facts and evidence on
record. Hence, the same are liable to be set
aside by this Hon'ble Court.
The Hon'ble Trial Court grievously erred in
passing the impugned Judgment and Order
of Conviction by placing much reliance on
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-35 and the evidence of P.W.1
and 27. The Hon'ble Court ought to have
noted that the Respondent/Complainant has
failed to prove his case beyond all
For short, 'First Appellate Court'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
reasonable doubts and failed to prove
involvement of Petitioner/ Accused No.2.
Hence, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction / sentence passed Hon'ble Trial
Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Lower
Appellate Court are liable to be set aside by
this Hon'ble Court.
That both the courts ought to have noted
that the very contentions of the petitioner
that he was applied for job and believing
government officials petitioner joined for
said job hence there was lapse on the part
of other accused and they committed said
offence but not this petitioner this said
contention was not at all appreciated by the
both the courts. Hence on this count alone
the impugned judgment and order of
conviction / sentence by passed by both the
courts are liable to be interfered with by this
Hon'ble Court.
It is to be noted that while passing the
impugned judgment and order of conviction,
both the courts have failed to properly
appreciate that the petitioner has seriously
disputed with respect to his involvement in
creation of documents as alleged by the
prosecution and his involvement in the
alleged offence. Hence, the impugned
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
Judgment of Conviction & Order of Sentence
passed by the both the Courts are bad in
Law and same deserve interference of this
Hon'ble Court.
It is to be noted that PW-18 and 19 are
Panch Witness who entirely turned hostile
and not supported the case of prosecution
and prosecution has failed to prove entire
case beyond reasonable doubt Hence on his
count also both the courts ought to have
dismissed the complaint filed by the
respondent.
It is to be noted that, there was not material
or documents to show that this petitioner
created or fabricated any of the said
documents and department to escape from
it fault and liability shifted everything on
petitioner and made him scapegoat and the
same was believed by both the Courts.
That both the Courts while passing the
impugned Judgment and Order of Conviction
have failed to appreciate that, witness
examined by prosecution leads to too many
contradictions, omissions, improvements
and no corroboration with each other, On
this count also the impugned judgment and
order of conviction passed by both the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
courts are not sustainable and as such same
are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble
Court.
It is to be noted that the, PW-11 brother of
petitioner herein himself adduced that, at
various point of time they gave money to
get job for petitioner and they arranged said
money from obtaining loan from bank and
paid to Accused No.3 but both the courts
not drawn correct interference and failed to
appreciate the same by passing the said
judgments.
It is further submitted that, the entire case
of prosecution which is conspiracy created
by the government officials and the
petitioner was made as scapegoat and when
they understood their passion they shifted
entire things on petitioner and made him
liable and the same was believed by both
the courts mechanically and passed
impugned orders to which interference of
this Hon'ble Court us warranted.
The Hon'ble Lower Appellate Court
grievously erred in mechanically confirming
impugned Judgment and Order of Conviction
passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court."
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently
contended that both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly
convicted the accused and sought for allowing the revision
petition.
7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is now
aged about 52 years and a family person and the incident
has occurred inadvertently in the year 2002 and therefore,
by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, custody already
undergone by the petitioner may be treated as period of
imprisonment and allow the revision in part.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent-State opposes the grounds urged in
the petition in toto.
9. He would further contend that the offences
alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature and
petitioner in active collusion with accused No.1 created
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
official records, so as to prepare a list of thirteen persons
who are not even teachers as duly appointed teachers for
availing the inter-division transfer. Therefore, no mercy can
be shown to the petitioner.
10. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned,
learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that
people like revision petitioner shall not be shown any mercy
as he went to the extent of creating a false document and
showing lenience would encourage similarly placed
perpetrators of crime. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
revision petition in toto.
11. Heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of material on record, following
points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution successfully
established all ingredients to attract
the offence punishable under Section
467 of IPC?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
2. Whether the impugned judgment is
suffering from legal infirmity or
perversity or call for interference?
3. Whether a sentence is excessive?
4. What order?
Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2:
13. In the case on hand, admittedly the revision
petitioner is not a duly appointed teacher. However, with
the active collusion with accused No.1, he concocted
documents at the government level to get his inter-division
transfer. When the same came into light, the revision
petitioner and other accused were prosecuted for the
aforesaid offences.
14. Material on record clearly disclosed that the
revision petitioner was not appointed as a teacher by the
government and based on the fake documents, the transfer
list was sought to be prepared.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
15. The case of the prosecution rests predominantly
on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence
which are more in the corroborative nature.
16. Pertinently, the prosecution witnesses did not
possess any previous enmity or animosity as against the
accused persons. The collection of documents by the
Investigation Agency is inthe proper course of investigation
and they depicted that petitioner was not a teacher so as to
avail the benefit of the inter-division transfer.
17. All these factors when viewed cumulatively it is
crystal clear that the ingredients of the aforesaid offences
have been established by the prosecution by placing cogent
and convincing evidence on record.
18. The material evidence has been rightly
appreciated by learned Trial Magistrate and re-appreciated
by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. Therefore,
this Court does not find any legal infirmity or error of
jurisdiction in convicting the accused for the aforesaid
offences.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point No.1 is
answered in affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.3:
20. The revision petitioner is now aged about 52
years. He lost his job as a teacher which was based on the
fake certificate and he has eked out his livelihood by
discharging his work as a teacher in a private college.
21. Taking note of the fact that incident has occurred
in the year 2002 and there are no complaints against the
petitioner thereafter and he is a first time offender, the
custody period already undergone by him between
09.08.2005 and 03.09.2005, it treated as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- ends of justice would be met.
22. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the
affirmative.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.4:
23. The finding of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3 as
above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Revision Petition is
allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the
conviction of the revision petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections
465, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read
with Section 34 of IPC, custody already
undergone by him between 09.08.2005
and 03.09.2005 is stated as of
imprisonment for all the offences by
directing the revision petitioner/accused
No.2 to pay the enhanced fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 10.02.2026.
(iii) If there is a failure to pay the
enhanced fine amount, then the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:794
HC-KAR
imprisonment ordered by the Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court stands restored
automatically.
(iv) Office is directed to return the
Trial Court records with copy of this order
forthwith for issuance of modified
conviction warrant.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SMM / CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 22
