IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1172/2011

BETWEEN:

1. MOHAMMAD SADIQ

S/O PATTE KHAN PATHAN

AGED 21 YEARS

OCC: FRUIT MERCHANT

R/O URBAN ONI

NARAGUND,

DISTRICT GADAG

2. IMRAN

S/O KASIM SAB CHANDI

AGED 21 YEARS

STUDENT

LODHI GALLI, NARAGUND

DISTRICT GADAG ..PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE-AMICUS

CURIAE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY SPP

HIGH COURT,

BANGALORE ..RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C.

BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2011 PASSED BY

THE

PRESIDING

OFFICER,

FTC,

SAGAR

IN

CRL.A.No.59/2010

AND

ORDER

DATED

05.06.2010

PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR

IN C.C.No.184/2007.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard

learned

counsel

Sri.Prabhugoud

B.

Tumbigi-Amicus

Curiae

for

petitioner

and

Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for respondent.

2.

Petition is directed against the order dated

03.10.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.59/2010 wherein said

appeal preferred by the accused persons came to be

dismissed and Judgment convicting the accused and

the order of sentence dated 05.06.2010 passed in

C.C.No.184/2007 was confirmed.

3

3.

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the

parties are addressed in accordance with their status

and rankings as stood before the trial court.

4.

The substance of the case of the prosecution is

extracted from the Judgment of the trial court as

under:

“2. The brief facts of the prosecution case

are as under:

On

06.07.2007,

the

complainant

had

parked his motor bike Bajaj Discovery

bearing Registration No.KA-15/K-4666 in

the vehicle-parking place situated in the

Office in which he is working. At about

1.30 P.M., he came to the parking place to

take the bike, immediately, he had rushed

to attend a phone call in his office. So, by

leaving the bike and its key in the parking

place itself, he gone inside the Office in

order to attend the phone call. After

attending the phone call, he returned to

the parking place, then, his bike was not

there at that time. He was under the

impression that his friends might have

taken the said bike from that spot. Hence,

he has spent his time in searching his bike.

But, unable to get the same inspite of his

search. So, left with no alternative, he

4

gave the complaint on the next day at 7.00

P.M. Accordingly, the case was registered

in Crime No.13/2007 and the investigation

was started.

3. It is also the case of the prosecution

that on 13.08.2007, at about 12.15 P.M.,

when the P.S.I and other officials were

checking the vehicles near Rona Cross of

Naragunda P.S. of Gadag District, while five

persons came on three bikes to that spot.

Immediately, the P.S.I of Naragunda P.S.

had stopped three bikes and checked the

same. In the 1^st bike, the accused of this

case was travelling and they have not

given the documents about the bike in

which they were travelling and the bike has

no registration number. Even other bike

riders were also not having the document.

Hence, the P.S.I. of Naragunda P.S. came

to the conclusion that all these three bikes

were stolen by the respective persons.

Accordingly, all these five persons were

arrested and brought them to the Police

Station along with the respective bikes and

a case was registered under Sec. 41(d).”

5.

Charges were framed, read over and explained

to the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

6.

Learned trial Judge was accommodated with oral

evidence o