Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9981
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
V SRISHANANDA, J
GOLDYSINGH S/O DALEETSINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
C.C.No.2825/2012 | Criminal Appeal No.72/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Chetan Kalburgi
For the Respondents: Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil
Conviction upheld based on sufficient documentary evidence; fine enhanced and custody time credited as imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 468, 420, 471 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66D - Conviction for forgery and fraud - The accused was convicted and sentenced for multiple offences involving forgery and deception, with fines imposed and concurrent sentences ordered. The appellate court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the sufficiency of documentary evidence over oral testimony. (Paras 2-17)
(B) Revision Jurisdiction - The court, while acknowledging the conviction, allowed the revision in part by treating the period of custody as time served, enhancing the fine to Rs.1,00,000/- and ordering compensation to the complainant. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for defrauding a complainant through a fake lottery scheme, leading to a financial loss to the complainant. The prosecution's case relied heavily on documentary evidence of the fraudulent transaction.
Findings of Court:
The evidence was cogently appreciated, and the conviction was deemed justified based on the material presented. The court allowed part of the revision by modifying the sentence and enhancing the fine.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence given the accused's status as a first-time offender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the conviction was supported by sound evidence and that the punishment was aligned with the nature of the offences committed, while also considering the accused's circumstances.
Result: The revision petition is allowed in part, maintaining conviction but modifying the sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction order details and appeal process. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. dismissal of appeal by the first appellate court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding conviction and sentencing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and justification of conviction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. modification of sentence and fine enhancement. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered conviction order in C.C.No.2825/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468, 420 , 471 of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act and sentenced as under:
“Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec., 465 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 gear for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 IPC and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 gear for the offence punishable U/Sec.66(D) IT Act and he shall pay fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
The above said sentences shall run concurrently.
Out of the 18,000/- of fine amount, Rs. 16,000/- shall be paid to PW-1 and remaining 2000/- shall be defray to the State.
Mo-1 Le., Cash of Rs. 16,000/- is released in favour of PW-1/Murgendra S/o Gundappa Bharadi is hereby made as absolute.
Office is directed to issue free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.”
3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.72/2018.
4. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 05.10.2020, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision.
6. Sri Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that the order of conviction is bad in law, as the necessary ingredients were not placed on record by the prosecution so as to maintain the conviction order.
7. In the alternative, Sri Chetan Kalburgi, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the accused is the first time offender and he was in judicial custody for a period of 30 days, the period of custody may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and prays to allow the revision petition to that extent.
8. Per Contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds in toto.
9. He would further contend that no leniency can be shown for the people like revision petitioner, who has committed grave offences and showing any mercy to such people would only resu
