[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sanganna S/O. Kudleppa Goudar vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1295
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100016 OF 2021
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100017 OF 2021
IN CRL.RP.NO.100016/2021
BETWEEN:
MR. SANGANNA S/O. KUDLEPPA GOUDAR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. #155/1, 2ND CROSS,
I MAIN, MANJUNATH NAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CPI HUNGUND CIRCLE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.03
15:09:47 +0530 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS
AND ORDERS DATED 18/02/2012 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.972/2005
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNAGUND AND
JUDGEMENT DATED 27/12/2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35/2012 BY
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT CONFIRMING
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1295
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2021
HC-KAR
THE SAME FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 454, 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2
IN CRL.RP.100017/2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SANGANNA S/O. KUDLEPPA GOUDAR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 155/1, 2ND CROSS,
I MAIN, MANJUNATH NAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CPI HUNGUND CIRCLE,
REB. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-581100.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401
OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
DATED 18/02/2012 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.971/2005 PASSED BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNAGUND AND JUDGEMENT DATED
27/12/2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2012 BY II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT CONFIRMING THE SAME,FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 454, 380 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1295
CRL.RP No. 100016 of 2021
C/W CRL.RP No. 100017 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Shreevatsa S.Hegde, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned
High Court Government Pleader.
2. Revision petition is by the accused, who has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 454
of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo sentence of
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine.
3. At the outset, Sri Shreevatsa S Hegde, learned counsel
would contend that the recovery of the stolen article has been
established. Therefore, hardly there is any scope for
consideration, that too in the revision jurisdiction with regard to
conviction.
4. However, he would submit that the Court may take into
consideration that the revision petitioner who has been convicted
in these two cases is working as a sweeper and leading a decent
life.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1295
HC-KAR
5. He submits that every sinner has got a future. Therefore,
sentence of imprisonment may be modified by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably.
6. Per contra, Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and the
alternate submission made by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner by contending that, in these two cases, the
accused has been convicted in two different incidents.
7. Therefore, there cannot be any mercy or concession shown
to the revision petitioner and sought for dismissal of the revision
petitions.
8. Having noted the fact that except these two cases, the
revision petitioner/accused has no other criminal antecedents
and is now working as a sweeper, leading a decent life, and
further taking note of the fact that he has already spent six
months in judicial custody in respect of the above cases, and
also taking note of the fact that the Trial Magistrate had
committed a mistake in ordering concurrent sentence in respect
to two different incidents and State has not filed any revision or
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1295
HC-KAR
the appeal against the said order, by enhancing the fine amount
in a sum of Rs.35,000/- in each of these two revision petitions
payable on or before 28.02.2026 and setting aside the balance
period of imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Accordingly, the following
ORDER
(i) Revision petitions are allowed.
(ii) The imprisonment ordered by the Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court in
both the cases is hereby set aside by enhancing the
fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/- in each of the
cases (Totally Rs.70,000/-).
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32
