IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2124/2012

C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2125/2012

In Crl.RP No.2124/2012

BETWEEN:

ARJUN GUNDU PATIL

AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SECURITY GUARD

R/o: ITAGI, TALUKA: KHANAPUR.

.. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH NANDAGHAD P.S.

R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.

.. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401

CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

24.02.2012 IN CRL.A.NO.139/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.

SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND

CONFIRMING ORDER DATED 10.06.2010 IN C.C.NO.636/2009 PASSED BY

THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR.

2

In Crl.RP No.2125/2012

BETWEEN:

ARJUN GUNDU PATIL

AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

R/O. ITAGI, TQ: KHANAPUR.

.. PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH NANDAGHAD P.S.

R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.

.. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF

CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2012 IN

CRL.A.NO. 140/2010 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM

BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED

10.06.2010 IN C.C.NO.668/2009 PASSED BY TEH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

AND JMFC, KHANAPUR.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL

HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Criminal Revision Petition Nos.2124/2012 and 2125/2012

have been filed by the common petitioner/accused under Section 11

of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘PO Act’, for brevity) read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code

3

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as against the order of sentence

passed

by

the

learned

Principal

Sessions

Judge,

Belgaum

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate court’, for brevity), in

Criminal Appeal Nos.139/2010 dated 24.02.2012 for sentencing him

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to

pay fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the

offence under Section 34 of KE Act; and further sentenced him in

Crl.A.No.140/2010

dated

24.02.2012

to

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of `10,000/-

for the offence under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act and in

default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

further period of three months and further sentenced the petitioner

to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay

fine of `20,000/- for the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka

Excise Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4

2.

Since both the revision petitions involve a common

question of law, they are taken together with the consent of learned

counsel on both sides.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-

State.

4.

The rank of the parties before the trial court is retained

for convenience.

5.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that that the PSI,

Nandagad police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 273 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and under Section

34 of the Karnataka Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KE

Act’) in CC No.636/20