Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V Srishananda, J
A.G. Shivanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.RP No. 450 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pratheep K.C., Pavana B.K.
For the Respondents: K. Nageshwarappa
The court upheld the conviction for misappropriation under Section 408 IPC based on overwhelming documentary evidence but modified the sentence to a nominal one-day imprisonment and enhanced the fine, citing the petitioner's advanced age and lack of criminal antecedents.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Misappropriation - Evidentiary Value - In matters of financial misappropriation, documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. (Para 12)
(B) Sentencing - Modification of Sentence - Consideration of Age and Antecedents - Where conviction is established but the accused is an elderly first-time offender with no criminal antecedents, the court may modify the sentence of imprisonment to a nominal period and enhance the fine to meet the ends of justice. (Para 21)
Issues: Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on an elderly first-time offender convicted of misappropriation should be modified.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.450 OF 2026
(397(Cr.PC) / 438( BNSS )
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2025 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR IN CRL.A NO.28/2016 AND IN CC NO.440/2004 DATED 31.12.2015 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PERIYAPATNA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 408 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.
With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, though the same is listed for hearing on interlocutory application.
Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.440/2004 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016.
Admittedly, revision petitioner was working as Manager in Ravanduru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’), who is said to have misappropriated Rs.13,995/- which was confirmed in internal enquiry and criminal prosecution was launched.
Police after registering the case, after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged in the charge sheet.
Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused, summoned the accused and framed charges.
Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 17 witnesses as PWs-1 to 17 and placed on record 46 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to 46.
After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances, culled out from the prosecution evidence, but failed to place defence evidence on record.
In a matter of this nature, documentary evidence would prevail over the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Learned Trial Magistrate on cumulative analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, noted that prosecution is successful in establishing that sum of Rs.13,995/- was not accounted by the petitioner to the accounts of the bank though he had collected the same. Accordingly, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. It was also directed that the bank may recover the misappropriated amount by filing a separate civil proceedings.
Order of conviction was subject matter of the challenge before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016.
Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by considered judgment.
Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
At the outset, Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that petitioner is aged 74 years and is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents. Therefore, period of imprisonment ordered by learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court may be set-aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and till today the p
