Partly allowed

Sri. H N Jayanna v. State by Hassan Extension Police

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024CRL.RP/706/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two teacher-aspirants convicted of producing forged SSLC marks cards to secure government teaching posts challenged concurrent convictions under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The High Court confirmed the convictions but substantially reduced imprisonment to detention till rising of Court with enhanced fine and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Convictions confirmed; imprisonment reduced to detention till rising of the Court; Rs.10,000 fine each; personal bonds with good-behaviour condition within two weeks.

Sri. H N Jayanna Vs State by Hassan Extension Police — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.706 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.705 OF 2016

¶5

IN CRL.RP.No.706/2016:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI H.N.JAYANNA S/O.NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI C.G.GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS.DEEPA L.KALLIMANI FOR SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTUOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

(BY SRI B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397(1) AND 401 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED IN CC.NO.355/2002 BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AND CONFIRMED IN THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶18

JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.100/2013 BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.

¶19

IN CRL.RP.NO.705/2016:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI B.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O.B.S.NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BEECHANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI C.G.GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS.DEEPA L.KALLIMANI FOR SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATES)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE BY HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTUOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶26

...RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397(1) AND 401 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED IN CC.NO.354/2002 BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AND CONFIRMED IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.99/2013 BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.

¶29

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

These petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26.04.2013 passed in CC.Nos.355/2002 and 354/2002 respectively by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, which is confirmed in the judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed in Crl.A.Nos.100/2013 and 99/2013 respectively by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶35

The Government of Karnataka had issued notification

¶36

during the year 1997-98 for appointment of teachers on merit basis through the District Employment Exchange, Hassan. On preparation of preliminary list of candidates on

¶37

the basis of merits, they were asked to appear in person before the Scrutinising Committee for the scrutiny of their marks cards and other original documents.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶40

2.1 During the course of scrutiny of their original records, the Committee informed the concerned

¶41

authorities on suspecting the SSLC marks cards of the petitioners-accused and they were of the opinion that the marks card be sent for comparison with regard to genuineness and veracity.

¶42

2.2 After comparing the SSLC marks card with the School register, the School authorities came to the conclusion that the documents produced before the Committee was fake SSLC marks card and that the Karnataka Secondary Education Board furnished the marks card which was obtained by the petitioners-accused. Thereafter, the true marks cards were obtained and it was concluded that the documents produced by the petitioners-accused for securing the job for the post of teachers were forged documents. Accordingly, a complaint

¶43

came to be lodged and the case came to be registered against the petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. After

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶46

completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Court.

¶47

2.3 The petitioner-accused were summoned and

¶48

were released on bail. On furnishing a copy of the chargesheet and prosecution papers, the plea of the accused was recorded and the petitioners-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶49

2.4 In order to establish and prove the case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to 20 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P33 in CC.No.355/2002 and 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20 in CC.No.354/2002.

¶50

After recording of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The accused denied the incriminating statement and evidence made against them, however, they did not lead any evidence or produce any documents on their behalf.

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶52

2.5 On the basis of the materials placed on record,

¶53

both oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six month for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Secondly, the accused were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and directed to pay a

¶54

fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Thirdly, the accused were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Fourthly, the accused were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶57

of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. The sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

¶58

2.6 The petitioners-accused challenged the said

¶59

judgment of conviction and order on sentence before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.Nos.100 and 99 of 2013 respectively. The Appellate Court, on 27.04.2016, by a separate order, upon reconsideration of the entire material

¶60

placed on record, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submission of both parties dismissed the appeals by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence rendered by the trial Court.

¶61

2.7 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-accused

¶62

are before this Court challenging the legality, validity, correctness, propriety and patent error committed by both the Courts in these two revision petitions.

¶63

It is the vehement contention of

¶64

Sri C.G.Gopalaswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶66

on behalf of the petitioners-accused that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and there is a patent error. Hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that there is no materials placed before the trial Court or the Appellate Court to show or pin point that the petitioners forged the documents namely, SSLC marks cards and even if they had committed such a blunder, they would not have produced the same before

¶67

the Committee for securing the job for the post of teachers. In fact, on the contrary, it was pleaded that the documents were forged by some other person and not the petitioners-accused.

¶68

3.1 It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that the provision of Section 420 of IPC so also Sections 465, 468 and 471 would not attract in the present case on hand. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that when no such offences have been committed, the

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶70

question of implicating and finding the petitioners-accused to be guilty of the offence is illegal, perverse as there are

¶71

no eye witnesses, so also, no materials are placed to pin point that the petitioners-accused alone have committed the offence. He further contends that the trial Court and Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidentiary material, more specifically, the cross-examination of the witnesses and has blindly accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses without applying its mind.

¶72

3.2 It is also vehemently contended that the SSLC marks cards were not seized from the custody of the petitioners-accused and they have been made a scapegoat by falsely implicating them for the offences charged herein. It is contended that the offences against the petitioners are all minor offences and the sentence imposed is also less than two years. Therefore, both the Courts ought to have taken a lenient view taking into consideration the age of the petitioners-accused being young and they were at the threshold of getting into the

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶75

employment and they being sole bread winners of their families, which has not been done in the present case.

¶76

3.3 It is the primary contention of learned Senior counsel that the charge made out against the petitionersaccused will not attract the provisions of Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. It is further contended that in Criminal Jurisprudence the prosecution will have to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weakness or silence of the accused. In fact, the accused is provided prerogative and liberty to keep silent. It is for the prosecution to establish its case on its own standing and on the basis of the material witnesses documents and other corroborative materials. This having not been done by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed is perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶77

3.4 Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶78

Sri V.J.Jayappagowda v. State of Halebeedu Police in

¶79

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶80

Crl.RP.No.543/2012 [DD. 24.09.2021] , whereby in a

¶81

similar set of facts, another person who was aspirant for the very same post of teacher was implicated for the very same offences and the trial Court had acquitted the said person namely, Sri V.J.Jayappa Gowda for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. However, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and on the same being challenged before this Court in the above mentioned revision petition, the revision petition came to be partly allowed and the benefit of leniency was shown to the said person and the substantive sentence came to be reduced from one year to the period of custody i.e. three days. However, the fine was ordered to be paid.

¶82

3.5 Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hansa v.

¶83

State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1991 , wherein

¶84

the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶87

short, 'the P.O.Act') was sought and the same was granted in the said case.

¶88

3.6 Under the circumstance, he contends that the present case is also similar to the one which is decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, leniency shall be shown to the petitioners-accused herein, who were at that point of time aged only 28 years and when they were interested in securing employment, ultimately they could not succeed, but were implicated in the present case for the offences stated hereinabove. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel seeks to allow these petitions setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and consequently, acquit the petitioners-accused for the offences charged against them.

¶89

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently contends that there is absolutely no

¶90

13 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶92

arbitrariness, illegality or patent error committed by the trial Court or Appellate Court. The judgment of conviction is passed on the basis of the material evidence, oral and documentary placed on record and they have been rightly convicted for the said offences, which is rightly affirmed by

¶93

the Appellate Court. He further submits that there is no material placed on record or no cross-examination elicited

¶94

from the prosecution witnesses to show that the petitioners-accused are not involved in such offences of forgery and producing the fake documents, on the basis of which, they could secure the employment for the post of teacher. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the petitions preferred by the petitioners-accused and consequently, confirm the judgments passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶95

Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on

¶96

behalf of petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, it is seen that in these petitions, the prosecution have examined 20 witnesses and 16 witnesses

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶99

respectively and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P33 and Exs.P1 to P20 respectively. However, no defence evidence is adduced.

¶100

I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials placed on record. Apparently, it is seen that there is no cogent material placed before the Court, which dislodge the theory of the prosecution and therefore, the judgment rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court does not call for any interference.

¶101

Under the circumstance, when there is no case

¶102

made out to advert from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, I do not find good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court or the Appellate Court with regard to conviction of the petitioners-accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶103

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶104

However, it is relevant to see that in the cases of these types, sentence has to be imposed commensurate to the offence alleged and the Courts will have to consider the same by extending benefit of the P.O.Act, where the sentence imposed is less than two years based on the age of the petitioners-accused as on the date of occurrence of offences; secondly, their financial status and their literacy and level of their economic status.

¶105

In the present case on hand, the sentence imposed is one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 471 and also to pay fine for each of the offences. When such being the case, the P.O.Act clearly gives the discretion to the Court to extend the benefit. In such of the cases, where the punishment for the offences imposed is not more than two years or with fine or with both, the nature of offences, the character of the offender and the circumstance of the case will have to

¶106

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶107

be taken into its totality while awarding sentence. If the petitioners-accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a year, then they would not be reformed and may become habitual offenders/criminals and further worsen getting into bad company. It is submitted that as of now the petitioners are involved in agricultural activities and farming in their own piece of land.

¶108

Under the circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction requires to be confirmed, but with regard to imposition of sentence, this Court will have to take into consideration the nature of offence, character of the petitioners-accused, their age and their financial and economic conditions while awarding such sentence.

¶109

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to increase the sentence of payment of fine. However, the sentence with regard to imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court requires to be substantially reduced.

¶110

17 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:39351 CRL.RP No. 706 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 705 of 2016

¶112

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶113

ORDER

¶114

i) The Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed-inpart;

¶115

ii) The judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2013 passed in CC.Nos.355/2002 and 354/2002 respectively by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, which confirmed in the judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed in Crl.A.Nos.100/2013 and 99/2013 respectively by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, is hereby confirmed. However, with regard to imposition of sentence for all the offences, the same is reduced as follows:

¶116