Partly allowed

Pokar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2023CRL.RP/466/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction for impersonation (IPC 418) and cheating (IPC 419), the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Relying on a previous similar judgment (Crl.R.P.No.467/2015) involving the same petitioner, the court ensured parity by reducing the rigorous imprisonment to six months for each offence with concurrent sentencing.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment for each offence (IPC 418/419) with fines of Rs.15,000/-, running concurrently.

Pokar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL.R.P.NO.466/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

POKAR S/O KHADAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7TH HOSKOTE VILLAGE SUNTICOPPA HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 233. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MRS. BHANUPRIYA, ADV., FOR SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADV.)

¶10

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI TOWN POLICE KODAGU, PIN - 571 201 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.1325/2006 VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2014 AND CRL.A NO.48/2007 VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 7.6.2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI.

¶15

THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This criminal revision petition is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.1325/2006 challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Madikeri, (for short the 'Trial Court') which has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.48/2007 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri (for short, the 'Appellate Court') vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2014.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are, accused-petitioner herein stood as a surety for accused no.2-Sulaiman in C.C.No.1642/2004 which was pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Madikeri, impersonating one K M Latheef and also had produced the RTC extracts of the lands belonging to the said K M Latheef before the Court. Since accused no.2 –Sulaiman had remained absent in

¶22

3 - CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶23

C.C.No.1642/2004, non-bailable warrant was issued against him, and thereafter notice to the surety was also issued. Upon service of notice, surety K M Latheef appeared before the Trial Court and brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that he had never stood as surety to accused no.2 – Sulaiman and he identified the photograph affixed to the surety affidavit as of the petitioner herein. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 418 & 419 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences against the petitioner and the case was registered in C.C.No.1095/2006. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 419 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the alleged offences. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.48/2007 and it is in this

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶26

background, the petitioner has approached this Court in

¶27

this criminal revision petition.

¶28

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶29

the petitioner had also stood as surety in favour of accused no.3 - Nazeer in the very same criminal proceedings i.e. in C.C.No.1642/2004 and since accused no.3 - Nazeer had remained absent before the Courts below and surety bond was cancelled and when notice was issued to surety they found that the petitioner had impersonated one Hassainar and stood as surety in his name in favour of accused no.3 -

¶30

Nazeer. A criminal case was therefore registered against him and he was tried for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 419 of IPC in C.C.No.1095/2006 and even in the said proceedings the Trial Court had found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 419 of IPC and imposed him similar sentence as imposed in the present case. He submits that as against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein had approached this Court in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 which was partly allowed by this Court

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶33

and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was modified. He accordingly, prays to dispose of this revision petition in terms of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 by reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner.

¶34

Per contra , learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State submit that the petitioner had stood surety for two different accused in C.C.No.1642/2004 impersonating two different persons namely Hassainar and K M Latheef. The petitioner appears to be habitual offender and therefore, no leniency is required to be shown to him.

¶35

I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed by both the parties and also perused the entire material on record.

¶36

The petitioner had stood surety to accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1642/2004 impersonating himself as K M Latheef and Hassainar and had filed two separate surety affidavits in the very same proceedings. The documents relating to property of the aforesaid K M Latheef and Hassinar was produced by him before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.1642/2004 whereas his photograph was affixed in

¶37

6 - CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶38

the surety affidavit. This Court in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 on the very same set of facts wherein the petitioner had stood as surety to accused no.3 - Nazeer in C.C.No.1642/2004 impersonating one Hassainar who was examined as PW.3 in the said case proceedings, had partly allowed the said petition by upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below and modified and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered view that in order to maintain parity even in the present case, the order of sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 419 of IPC is required to be modified in terms of order passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015. Accordingly, I pass the following :-

¶39

:: ORDER ::

¶40

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part

¶41

and disposed of in terms of order passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 dated 19.03.2021.

¶42

The judgment and order of conviction passed in C.C.No.1325/2006 against the

¶43

¶44

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶45

petitioner convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 419 of IPC which has been affirmed in Crl.A.No.48/2007 by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 07.03.2014 is upheld.

¶46

However, the order of sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified in terms of modified sentence passed in Crl.R.P.No.467/2015 and the accused -petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 418 IPC and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC, the accusedpetitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶47

¶48

CRL.RP No. 466 of 2015

¶49

It is ordered that the sentence imposed for

¶50

both the offences shall run concurrently and the

¶51

accused shall be entitled for set off under Section

¶52

428 of Cr.P.C.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

NMS

Pokar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pokar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Amzad Khan Vs State by Panchanahalli

Murali Vs B v Ravikumar

Sri. Subramani Vs State of Karnataka

The Enforcement Officer Vs Shri C.S. Subramanian

M B Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B K Chandrashekar Vs Sri Udaya M Shetty