IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 53 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

1. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 17TH CORSS, 6TH MAIN, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.

2. SANTHOSH @ KAPPEQ S/O SHYAMASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.56, I MAIN, VALLABH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061.

Digitally

3. ADI @ ADITYA BHAT, signed by R MANJUNA THA S/O S B BHAT Location:

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF R/AT NO.44, 2ND MIAN, KARNATAKA

2ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY BANASHANKARI P S BANGALORE-560 070 REPRSENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.4316/2002 BY THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27.01.2010 ON THE FILE OF III-ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION BY APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.213/2010 BY ITS JUDGMENT DTD. 23.12.2014 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-XIII, AT BENGALURU THE PETITIONERS MAY BE ACQUITTED.

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 Sri.Shankarappa S., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Revision petitioners are the accused who have been convicted in CC No.4316/2002 dated 27.01.2010 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.145/2010 and 213/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC though charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC.

3. Stolen articles were seized from the custody of the accused after they were arrested and were recovered and conviction order came to be upheld on the ground of recovery of the stolen articles.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners during the course of arguments, with vehemence, in his usual style, contended that trial before the learned Trial Magistrate is suffering from lacunae and therefore, very conviction itself is incorrect.

5. He would point out that though the technical defects in the trial was brought to the notice of the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, without even addressing those points, mechanically learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has upheld the order of conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

6. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction, on the ground that recovery of huge quantity of the gold and diamond ornaments has taken place, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

7. He would further emphasize that among the accused persons, two of them have been married and one of the parents of the accused is suffering from cancer and he has remained unmarried to serve his parents. There is remorse expressed by each of the accused persons and incident has occurred when they were in the young age and therefore, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should have been granted to the revision petitioners which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition in part.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State opposes the revision grounds in toto.

9. He would further submit that signature being not made on the accused statement did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

10. Insofar as alternate submission of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is concerned, learned High Court Go