G Ravi Vs State by Inspector of Police

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:2.9.11 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.CC.NO.07/2007 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b) R/W 420, 418, 409 IPC.

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶25

IN CRL.A No.970/2011

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

K N MANOJKUMAR S/O LATE K.R. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.927, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE – 570 002

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE FOR CBI & ACB BIAL ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE CONVICTION AWARDED TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.09.2011 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.6/2007 BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(b) R/W 420, 409, 418 OF IPC.

¶35

IN CRL.A No990/2011

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI A S SAHINATHA S/O LATE A N SESHADRI SHETTY 59 YEARS R/AT NO.1177/1, "AKSHAYA" VISHNUVARADHAN ROAD,

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶40

CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSORE-04

¶41

...APPELLANT

¶42

(BY SRI KUSHAL GOWDA FOR SRI BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATES)

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE

¶45

...RESPONDENT

¶46

(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶47

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:02.09.2011 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.8/2007-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b) R/W 420, 418, 409 IPC.

¶48

IN CRL.A No.991/2011

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

SRI N SRINIVASA

¶51

S/O LATE N R PRAHLADA RAO 52 YEARS R/AT NO.1270, SRIRAMAPURA II STAGE, SBM COLONY MYSORE -570 023

¶52

...APPELLANT

¶53

(BY SRI KUSHAL GOWDA FOR SRI BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATES)

¶54

AND:

¶55

THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶56

4 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶58

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE

¶59

...RESPONDENT

¶60

(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶61

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:02.09.2011 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL. CC.No.07/2007 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b) R/W 420, 418, 409 IPC.

¶62

IN CRL.A No.1011/2011

¶63

BETWEEN:

¶64

SRI M L HARSHA S/O M S LAKSHMISHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.223, 17^TH CROSS 4^TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE -8

¶65

...APPELLANT

¶66

(BY SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶67

AND:

¶68

STATE BY CBI POLICE, BANGALORE

¶69

...RESPONDENT

¶70

(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶71

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:02.09.2011 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C. No.09/2007-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b) R/W 420, 418, 409 IPC.

¶72

5 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶74

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶75

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶76

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶77

Heard Sri N.Shivakumar, Sri Ramachandra G. Bhat, Sri N Byregowda and Sri Naushad Pasha, learned advocates for the appellants and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶78

In all these matters appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 418 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fine and default sentence.

¶79

For the sake of convenience, Criminal Appeal number,

¶80

Spl. C.C.No., Names of the appellants, rank of the appellants before the XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases Bengaluru, Order of conviction, sentence

¶81

passed are tabulated hereunder:

¶82

Crl.A No.	Spl.C.C.No.	Name of the appellant	Rank before the Spl. Court	Order of conviction under Section	sentence
943/2011	07/2007	G.Ravi	Accused No.2	120B of IPC	S.I. for one year

¶83

6 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶85

				420 IPC	S.I. for year fine Rs.10,0 in def SI for months	one and of 00/- ault, six
				418 IPC	SI for year fine Rs.10,0 in def SI for months	one and of 00/- ault, six .
				409 IPC	SI for year fine Rs.10,0 in def SI for months	one and of 00/- ault, six .
970/2011	06/2007	K.N.Manoj Kumar	Accused No.3	-do-	-do-
990/2011	08/2007	A.S. Sahinatha	Accused No.2	-do-	-do-
991/2011	07/2007	N.Srinivasa	Accused No.3	-do-	-do-
1011/ 2011	09/2007	M.L.Harsha	Accused No.2	-do-	-do-

¶86

At the outset appellants submit that they are all private

¶87

parties and they do not intend to challenge the Order of conviction and their argument is restricted only with regard to the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Special Judge as referred to supra, having regard to their age and other mitigating circumstances.

¶88

7 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶90

Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶91

CBI, however, opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellants that leniency should not be shown on the ground of their age and other mitigating circumstances that they have put forth.

¶92

He further contended that if such leniency is shown to appellants, persons who are similarly placed would get encouraged and the same would send a wrong message to the Society and therefore, appeals are to be dismissed in toto .

¶93

Sri X.M.Joseph, learned counsel, though not connected with the rights of the appellants in these appeals, however submitted that he having represented accused No.1 who is a public servant being the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, K.R.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru, submitted that the appellants conceding for the Order of conviction would affect the rights of accused No.1-Sri S.Subramanian.

¶94

As such, Sri X.M.Joseph, learned counsel is heard in the matter only to that extent.

¶95

8 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶97

9. Having heard the parties, the sole point that would arise

¶98

for consideration in all these appeals is:

¶99

“Whether the appellants have made out a case for setting aside the imprisonment ordered by the learned Special Judge referred to supra by enhancing the fine amount suitably?

¶100

In the case on hand, the material on record would depict that the loans were sanctioned not in accordance with law and present appellants are the beneficiaries.

¶101

The case of the prosecution predominantly depended on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence. The preliminary enquiry conducted by higher officials of the Indian Overseas Bank and the material collected by the Investigation Agency was placed before the sanctioning authority of the accused No.1 and sanction to prosecute has been granted.

¶102

Reserving the right for the accused No.1-Sri S. Subramanian to urge on merits of the matter including the validity of the sanction Order, for the present purpose, in view of the categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that they would not intend to challenge the

¶103

9 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶105

Order of conviction, the conviction of the present appellants needs to be maintained.

¶106

It is made clear that because of the non challenge of the conviction order by appellants in these appeals, the rights of one of the accused-Sri S.Subramanian does not get affected to be urged in his appeals.

¶107

Having upheld the Order of conviction, in view of the categorical submission made on behalf of the appellants, this Court bestowed its attention to the alternate submission made on behalf of the appellants, more so, in the light of the memo placed on record by each of the appellants.

¶108

Taking note of the age of each of the appellants and the mitigating circumstances with regard to their health conditions etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that by sending the appellants at this distance of time to the prison by upholding the order of imprisonment would act harsh, more so, when they are first time offenders.

¶109

It is settled principles of law that role to be played by a Court while recording an order of conviction and role to be

¶110

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶111

played by a Court while passing appropriate Order while sentencing the accused are different. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that appellant has made out a case to set-aside imprisonment by enhancing fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each.

¶112

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative and the following Order is passed:

¶113

ORDER

¶114

(i) Appeals are allowed in part .

¶115

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 418 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Special Judge as referred to supra is hereby setaside by directing each of the appellants to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (plus the fine imposed by the learned Special Judge), on or before 15^th March 2025.

¶116

11 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:3150 CRL.A No. 943 of 2011 C/W CRL.A No. 970 of 2011 CRL.A No. 990 of 2011 AND 2 OTHERS

¶118

(iii) Failure the make the enhanced payment of fine, appellants shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Special Judge.

¶119

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

¶120

JUDGE

¶121

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

G Ravi v. State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Ravi v. State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thotayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod Gowda Vs State by

Sri. Umaprasad Kittappa @ K Umaprasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

A Mahadevappa Vs the State by Cbi/Acb

S S Narasimhachari Vs the State by Cbi/Acb

Sri T Channakeshava Vs the State of Karnataka