2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11503
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
AKBAR AHAMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 1221 / 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1221 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2019 IN CRL.RP No. 1221/2019 BETWEEN:
AKBAR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE NASSIR AHAMMED, MERCHANT, RESIDING AT GOPALANAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101, PRESENTLY AT BAHAR MANZIL, 60 FEET ROAD, BESIDE SAHARA SHAADI MAHAL, NEHRU NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. REGO LPE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TOWN POLICE, MARKET ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23/7/2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO153/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 6/9/2017 PASSED IN CC NO. 137/2012 BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
IN CRL.RP NO. 1222/2019 BETWEEN:
AKBAR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE NASSIR AHAMMED, MERCHANT, RESIDING AT GOPALANAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101, PRESENTLY AT BAHAR MANZIL, 60 FEET ROAD, BESIDE SAHARA SHAADI MAHAL, NEHRU NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. REGO LPE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TOWN POLICE MARKET ROAD, JOYTHI NAGAR CIRCLE CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.
BY ITS INSPECTOR.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23/7/2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO154/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 6/9/2017 PASSED IN CC NO.138/2012 BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER
1. These two petitions are connected to each other as the petitioner/accused in both the cases is one and the same and the respondent as well. Hence, both the cases are taken up together for consideration.
2. These Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner/accused, being aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and orders on sentence dated 06.09.2017 in C.C.Nos.137/2012 and 138/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru and its confirmation judgments and orders dated 23.07.2019 in Crl.A.Nos.153/2017 and 154/2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
3. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience.
Factual matrix of the case:
4. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had availed loan from Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, M.G.Road, Chikkamagaluru on 15.02.2008 to purchase two lorries bearing Reg.Nos.KA-18-A-2392 and KA-18-A-1966. After purchasing the said lorry, without clearing the loan, the accused is stated to have fabricated and created the hypothecation (for brevity, ‘HP’) cancellation letter and also Form No.35 for the purpose of cheating. Submitting the letters to the concerned RTO and got the HP cancelled and thereafter, the accused are stated to have sold the said Lorries to a third party.
5. Based on the private complaint lodged by the comp