High Court at Bengaluru dismissed the State's criminal revision petition challenging an acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove seizure of documents and noted the legal bar on converting an acquittal to a conviction via revision.
The criminal revision petition filed by the State is dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 903 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 903 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAJPE POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
CRL.RP No. 903 of 2019
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.23/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALORE, D.K., IN C.C.NO.79/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406,417,468,420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.10.2016 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M, Mangaluru, D.K in C.C.No.79/2010 which was confirmed by the Sessions Court dated 16.03.2019 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.23/2017.
name of accused No.1 to obtain a pass port in the name of accused No.1. A case was registered in crime No.230/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 468, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer after concluding an investigation submitted a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court took cognizance for the said offences and secured the accused and released them on bail. The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the accused and they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and marked exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C who denied the incriminating evidence against them. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
CRL.RP No. 903 of 2019
prosecution that accused No.1 had created the document. It also held that there was no incriminating evidence against accused No.2 and that the prosecution had failed to prove the nexus between accused No.1 and accused No.2 and thus acquitted them of the offences.
CRL.RP No. 903 of 2019
documents from the custody of accused No.1 and failed to prove the complicity of accused No.2 in the offence by acceptable evidence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is unexceptionable. There is no incriminating evidence brought in by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. In addition, in a revision petition filed under Section 397 of IPC, this Court cannot over turn a judgment of acquittal to a judgment of conviction in view of Section 403(3) of Cr.P.C.
In that view of the matter, this revision petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition filed by the State challenging a judgment of acquittal can be entertained under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Whether the prosecution adequately proved the seizure of documents and complicity of the accused.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAJPE POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
NAVEEDA BILKIS MANHAR
K. MAHAMMED KALEEL
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
