Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32395
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200060/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200061/2015
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200060/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri R.N.Sharanappa S/o Nagappa,
Age : 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Hampanur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
… Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
2
This
Criminal
Revision
Petition
is
filed
under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 24.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.1039/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.49/2015 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200061/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri Govindraj S/o Rangappa,
Age : 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Chikkabennur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
… Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
This
Criminal
Revision
Petition
is
filed
under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 22.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.924/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
3
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.67/2014 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
These revision petitions coming on for Final Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
The Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioners had submitted fake marks cards to obtain the Government job. The Court also found that the revision petitioners were not entitled to probation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - [465, 468, 471, 473, 420 IPC] - REVISION PETITION - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - ENHANCEMENT OF FINE - PROBATION - REJECTION
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC for submitting fake marks cards at the time of interview for the post of Teacher in Government Boys Junior College. The first appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioners filed revision petitions challenging the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioners had submitted fake marks cards to obtain the Government job. The Court also found that the revision petitioners were not entitled to probation.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate confirmed that accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction, patient factual defects or perversity and thus, calls for interference?2. Whether the sentence is excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court was based on cogent and convincing evidence. The Court found that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of the offences alleged against the revision petitioners.2. The Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court was excessive. The Court took into account the age of the revision petitioners, their family circumstances, and the fact that they had already spent some time in custody. The Court enhanced the fine amount and treated the period of custody already undergone by the revision petitioners as the period of imprisonment.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioners was maintained, but the sentence was modified. The revision petitioners were ordered to pay a fine of `75,000/- each, inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court. The period of custody already undergone by the revision petitioners was treated as the period of imprisonment.
These two revision petitions are filed against the
order dated 24.11.2009 passed in CC No.1039/2002 by
the Court of Prl. JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated
07.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.236/2009 by the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur against the revision
petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa
and
the
order
dated
23.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.924/2002 by the court of Prl.
JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated 26.12.2014 passed in
C.C.No.235/2009 by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raichur against the revision petitioner -Govindarju N.R.
2.
The details of the criminal case, appeals
punishment, default sentence are as under :-
In respect revision petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa (CC
No.236/2009 dated 07.10.2014)
4
Offence
Punishment
Fine
Default sentence
Criminal Appeal
465 & 471
IPC
01 year
`5,000/-
03 months
468 IPC
04 years
`5,000/-
06 months
473 IPC
04 years
`5,000/-
06 months
420 IPC
04 years
`5,000/-
06 months
Crl.A.No.49/2014
In respect revision petitioner-Govindraju N.R -
(C.C.No.235/2009 dated 26.12.2014)
Offence
Punishment
Fine
Default sentence
Criminal Appeal
465 IPC
01 year
1,000/-
03 months
468 IPC
04 years
5,000/-
01 year
471 IPC
01 year
1,000/-
03 months
473 IPC
04 years
5,000/-
06 months
Crl.A.No.67/2014
3.
Brief facts of these cases are as under :-
PSI, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur filed charge-
sheet against the revision petitioners herein and against
one Umashankar for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC before the
jurisdictional Magistrate. The said charge-sheet came to be
filed after investigating a complaint. Whereunder, it is
contended that on 15.12.2001 at the time of interview for
the post of the Teacher held in Government Boys Junior
College headed by Deputy Director of Public Instructions
5
(for short, ‘DDPI’) the revision petitioners submitted a fake
marks cards. The revision petitioners succeeded in the
interview and thereafter, the documents were collected
from the revision petitioners. On collection of the
documents, the same were sent for verification to the
respective Government Departments. On such verification,
it was noticed that the marks card of Sharanappa and
Teacher Certificate Higher (TCH) marks of card pertaining
to Govindraju were found to be fake marks cards and
whereby they cheated the DDPI. The matter was
investigated thoroughly and then charge-sheet came to be
filed.
Thereafter, presence of the accused persons were
secured before the learned trial Magistrate. The charge
was framed and accused persons pleaded not guilty and
therefore trial was held.
4.
In order to prove the cases, in both the
revision petitions the prosecution examined number of
witnesses comprising of DDPI and Secretary of Karnataka
6
Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB). In fact
the documents including the fake marks cards and letters
issued by the competent authority were relied upon.
Thereafter, accused statement as contemplated under the
provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein
accused persons denied all the incriminatory materials
founds against them. However, the accused person did not
place any material evidence on record to controvert the
version of the prosecution witnesses by examining
themselves or filing necessary written submission as is
contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C.
5.
Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate heard the
parties in detail and passed an order of conviction and
sentence as referred in table supra.
6.
Being aggrieved by the same, the revision
petitioners approached first appellate court in Criminal
Appeal Nos.49 and 67 of 2014 as referred to supra.
Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court secured the
records and after hearing the parties, dismissed the
7
appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Magistrate.
7.
Being aggrieved by the same, the revisions
petitioners are before this court in these revision petitions.
8.
In the Revision Petitions, the following grounds
are raised:
In Crl.R.
