[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Obaiah vs State By Turuvanaru Police on 10 March, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
CRL.RP No. 707 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.707 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. OBAIAH
S/O BAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. THAMMAIAH
S/O OBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
BOTH ARE S/o SULLAHATTI VILLAGE,
TURUVANURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PIN-515 281.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by R AND:
MANJUNATHA
Location: STATE BY TURUVANARU POLICE
HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
OF HIGH COURT,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
CRL.RP No. 707 of 2018
HC-KAR
06.04.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.No.80/2017 AND
ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
24.10.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.No.1128/2016 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt. Archana Murthy P., learned counsel for the
revision petitioners and Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who
suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 24.10.2017,
in C.C.No.1128/2016, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Chitradurga, confirmed in Crl.A.No.80/2017, dated 06.04.2018,
on the file of 06.04.2018.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. A stolen submersible pump when sought to be sold
in the open market, accused persons were caught red-handed
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
by the jurisdictional police and enquired about the submersible
pump which was in possession of the accused persons. They
admitted the guilt. The same was recovered under the recovery
panchanama in respect of the pending first information report
lodged by the complainant wherein loss of submersible pump
from the agricultural land of complainant.
4. After due trial, revision petitioners were convicted
as there was no proper explanation for purchasing the
submersible pump which was installed for the bore well of the
complainant.
5. Order of conviction and sentence was challenged
before the First Appellate Court.
6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by
considered judgment dated 06.04.2018. Thereafter accused
persons are before this Court.
7. Smt. Archana Murthy P., learned counsel for the
revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision
petition would contend that there is no nexus between the
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
alleged crime and the present revision petitioners and therefore
order regarding the conviction is bad in law and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
8. Alternatively, learned counsel would contend that
since the accused persons are first time offenders, benefit of
the probation of offender's Act should have been extended to
the revision petitioners, which has not been properly
considered by both the Courts and therefore sought for altering
the sentence by directing the custody period already undergone
by the accused as period of sentence by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably.
9. Per contra, Sri Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader would support the impugned judgment by
opposing grounds of revision in toto.
10. He would further contend that in the absence of any
proper explanation as to the ownership of the submersible
pump which was being sought to be sold in open market by the
accused persons and the same related to the complaint lodged
by the complainant in the case who is examined as P.W.1, the
learned trial judge and the learned judge in the First Appellate
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
Court were justified in convicting the accused and thus sought
for dismissal of the revision petition.
11. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned,
learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that in
the case on hand, learned Trial Magistrate did consider the
grant of probation and negated the same and therefore no
mercy can be shown.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that P.W.1 has specifically deposed that he had got
dug a bore well and installed a submersible pump for lifting the
water from the bore well. The same was found to be stolen
away by somebody and therefore complaint came to be lodged
vide Ex.P1.
14. Police after registering the case investigated the
matter. During the course of investigation, the accused persons
were caught red-handed when they were trying to sell the
stolen pump from the agricultural land of P.W.1 and there was
no proper explanation.
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
15. The voluntary statements given by the accused
persons vide Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 when they were in custody
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stands established
through the evidence of the Investigation Officer. Recovered
stolen pump was given to the interim custody of the
complainant by taking the indemnity bond vide Ex.P9. No
explanation is offered by the accused as to possession of pump.
16. These factors would be sufficient enough to
conclude the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, conviction of the accused cannot be
disturbed by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
17. This would take this Court to the next limb of
argument namely, to deal with the case of the revision
petitioner leniently.
18. Learned Trial Magistrate while considering the plea
of granting probation has stated that offence under Section 379
of Indian Penal Code does not warrant exercise of the power
under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Such a
reasoning is totally opposed to the very scheme of the
Probation of Offenders Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
19. Taking note that the incident is of the year 2016,
calling for the report at this distance of time is nothing but
futile exercise.
20. Taking note of the fact that accused persons are
first time offenders and did not possess any criminal
antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
custody period already undergone by the accused if treated as
period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum
of Rs.30,000/- each payable on or before 10.04.2026, ends of
justice would be met.
21. Accordingly, the following
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision
petitioners/accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal
Code, custody period already undergone by
them is treated as period of imprisonment for
the proved offence by enhancing the fine amount
in a sum of Rs.30,000/- each payable by each of
NC: 2026:KHC:14446
HC-KAR
the revision petitioners on or before 10.04.2026,
failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would
automatically result in the restoration of the
sentence ordered by learned Trial Magistrate,
confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
(iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with copy of this order for issue of
modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80
