Chandranayak S/O Malanayak Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 48/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND THE RECORDS IN CC NO. 907/2010 ON THE FILE LEARNED ADDITIONAL JMFC BAILHONGAL ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 48/2020 DATED 21.10.2022 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY ADDITIONAL JMFC BAILHONGAL IN CC NO. 907/2010 DATED 20.01.2020 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 420 OF IPC AND SET THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AT LIBERTY.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶23

Heard Sri.T.Basavaraj, learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

¶25

Accused No.2 who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.907/2010 dated 20.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.48/2020 dated 21.10.2022 has preferred this revision petition.

¶26

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶27

Present revision petitioner is being the President of School Development and Management Committee (hereinafter SDMC for short) of Government Composite High School, Hannikeri had misused the government funds

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶30

to the tune of Rs.10,95,195/- along with other accused persons. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged.

¶31

Police after detailed investigation, filed the charge sheet.

¶32

Accused No.2 after due trial was convicted for the aforesaid offences noting that there was misappropriation of the funds inasmuch as accused No.2 has signed the cheques of the misappropriated funds.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.48/2020.

¶34

7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

¶35

securing the records, heard the arguments of both the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and maintained the sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶38

8. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is

¶39

before this Court, in this revision.

¶40

Sri.T.Basavaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that accused No.1 having died during the pendency of the trial and accused No.3 after conviction order is passed and civil suit filed by the SDMC having been decreed and amount is ordered to be recovered from the legal representatives of accused Nos.1 and 3 as well, this Court may consider enhancing the fine amount so far as accused No.2 who is the sole accused remaining in the case and set aside the order of imprisonment.

¶41

He further submits that petitioner being the President of SDMC, his role was only limited to subscribing his signature to the cheques and he did not properly verify the misdeeds committed by accused Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, Court may consider this case as sympathetically and pass appropriate orders.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶43

Per contra, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned orders.

¶44

He further contended that accused No.2 being the President of SDMC, he was bound to verify the proper records and then sign the cheques. Very fact that he did not verify the same and signed the cheques itself shows that he was part of the criminal conspiracy that existed among accused Nos.1 to 3 resulting in conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences which is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶45

He would further contend that no mercy or leniency can be shown to accused No.2 inasmuch as but for the signature, the misappropriation would not have taken place and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto .

¶46

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, it has been established that funds of SDMC has been misused by the revision petitioner by signing the cheques. Admittedly, no work has taken place and investigation papers would reveal that without the work being carried out, the funds of SDMC have been misused by accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶50

Revision petitioner being the President, was duty bound to consider the material on record properly and then issue the cheques. But revision petitioner failed to do so. No explanation is forthcoming in this regard by the revision petitioner.

¶51

Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that work for which the amounts have been released from the SDMC have not been carried out at all, learned Trial Judge was justified in recording an order of conviction for the offencess punishable under Section 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC inasmuch as there was an automatic

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶53

entrustment and there is a wrongful loss caused to the SDMC and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons.

¶54

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly reappreciated the above material on record while upholding the order of conviction, which requires no interference by this Court that too, in the limited revisional jurisdiction.

¶55

Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner needs to be maintained.

¶56

Having said thus, taking note of the fact that accused No.1 is dead during the pendency of the trial and accused No.3 after the conviction order is passed and there is already a decree by the Civil Court for recovery of the amount misappropriated and the amount is also ordered to be recovered from the legal representatives of accused Nos.1 and 3 as well in O.S. No.30/2015 which has become final.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶58

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that by modifying the sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court in ordering sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid as enhanced fine amount for the proved offences and directing the revision petition to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court, would meet the ends of justice.

¶59

Accordingly, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶62

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified as under:

¶63

a. Revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court.

¶64

b. Revision petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount in a sum of

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4606 CRL.RP No. 100003 of 2023

¶66

Rs.2,00,000/- payable in four equal installments in a sum of Rs.50,000/commencing from 30.03.2025, 30.04.2025, 30.5.2025 and 30.06.2025 before the Trial Court failure to pay the enhanced fine will result in automatic restoration of the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶67

c. Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is to be paid as compensation to SDMC, Hannikeri .

¶68

d. Amount of fine which is ordered to be paid as compensation by the revision petitioner in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, shall be given deduction in the Civil suit decree insofar as revision petitioner is concerned.

¶69

Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records

¶70

with copy of this order forthwith.

¶71

SD/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶72

KAV/CT:PA/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12

Chandranayak S/O Malanayak Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandranayak S/O Malanayak Patil v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shri Vittal S/O Yallappa Yarnaikar Vs Shri Parashuram S/O Shankar Kirwadkar

Naveen S/O. Manjunath Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O Shivappa Bannikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

B Jathappa Alias Kori Jatappa Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Satish Gona Aliyas Tinku S/O Tinku Shyam Gona Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Leena M Lewis W/O M Michael J Lewis Vs Mrs Bebi Anand Nagaralli