First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Smt. Hema L. K., Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, H.C.G.P., for the respondent- State.

2. These three revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.5, 1 and 3, respectively in C.C.No.4300/2011 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi.

3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the above revision petitions are as under:

Upon the charge-sheet filed by Brampur Police, in respect of Crime No.157/2010 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and after due trial, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 for the offence under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 468 and six months for the offence under Section 465 and 471 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- each to the aforesaid offences with default sentence.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.84/2018, 83/2018 and 86/2018, respectively.

5. The learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeals filed by the revision petitioners and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners namely accused Nos.5, 1 and 3 have preferred these revision petitions before this Court.

7. Accused No.2 Kamalabai who is an appellant in Criminal Appeal No.86/2018 has not preferred any revision petition, till today.

8. Accused No.4 said to have died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, case against the accused No.4 came to be abated before the trial Court.

9. Smt. Hema L.K., Sri Avinash A. Uploankar and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioners in chorus contend before this Court that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences resulting in miscarriage of justice.

10. They would further contend that since the learned trial Judge has acquitted the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC., in the absence of any wrongful loss or wrongful gain proved by the prosecution, conviction of the revision petitioners for the remaining offences would be ipso facto illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition.

11. Alternatively, they would contend that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the first appellate Court, since all the revision petitioners are first time offenders, they are entitle for grant of probation or in the alternative the custody period already undergone by them treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent.

12. Smt. Hema L.K., would contend that accused No.5 had benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, only enhanced fine may be imposed.

13. Per contra, Sri. Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, learned HCGP, not only supported the impugned Judgments, but also contends that, the offences under Sections 465 , 468, 471 can independently stand even in the absence of offence under Section 420 IPC and therefore, conviction of the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petitioners.

14. He further contended that, when both the Courts based on the material evidence have appreciated the material facts i