Dismissed¶79

State of Karnataka v. Mohammad S/O Allisab Sheikh

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025CRL.RP/100229/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC 2025:KHC-D:4371; CRL.RP No.100229 of 2017 (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 06-03-2025, V. Srishananda J): State's criminal revision against concurrent acquittals for cheating/forgery/conspiracy (Ss.420, 465, 120-B r/w 34 IPC) arising from an alleged fake security for a Rs.22-lakh Hubballi Urban Co-operative Bank loan (Sy.No.263, Plots 110-111, Belur Industrial Area); acquittal of 02.06.2015 confirmed in Crl.A.108/2015; held revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence absent legal infirmity, perversity or patent factual error; 'triple innocence' after acquittal plus appellate confirmation; revision dismissed, bail bonds discharged; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

An order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted Court reinforces the innocence of the accused. ¶18

State of Karnataka Vs Mohammad S/O Allisab Sheikh — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioner-State makes out that both impugned judgments suffer from legal infirmity and perversity besides patent factual errors so as to call for interference in the Court's revisional jurisdiction? +2 more

¶52

Court's answer

An order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted Court reinforces the innocence of the accused.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Having been acquitted by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the first appellate Court, the respondents are clothed with 'not double innocence but triple innocence'.

¶19

Key takeaways

The degree of proof required of the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt; on suspicion alone, no conviction is permissible.ratio¶20
Any amount of suspicion would not take the seat of proof; if two views are permissible on the given set of facts and circumstances, the view favouring the accused must be preferred over the view favouring the prosecution.ratio¶21
Once an acquittal is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the material evidence so as to hold the impugned judgments suffer from legal infirmity or perversity; no patent factual error was brought to the Court's notice by the State.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision by the State (under S.397(3) r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.; cf. S.438 BNSS) against the acquittal of three accused in C.C.Nos.1044/2007 and 261/2011 (Prl. JMFC, Dharwad) for offences punishable under Ss.420, 465, 120-B r/w 34 IPC — alleged pledge of a fake/encumbered security (Sy.No.263, Plots 110 and 111, 4039 sq. mtrs., Belur Industrial Area) for a Rs.22-lakh loan from Hubballi Urban Co-operative Bank; FIR Crime No.CEP 46/2007. Acquittal dated 02.06.2015 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.108/2015 (II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad). Held, dismissing the revision: an acquittal by a duly constituted Court reinforces the innocence of the accused — the respondents here bear 'triple innocence'; the degree of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, suspicion being no substitute for proof, and where two views are permissible the view favouring the accused must be preferred; a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the material evidence so as to hold concurrent acquittals suffer from legal infirmity or perversity, and no patent factual error was pointed out by the State. The record showed no positive evidence that the security was fake, the entire loan amount was repaid, and there was no wrongful loss to the Bank or wrongful gain to the respondents (findings of the courts below). Petition against accused No.3 (deceased) stood abated v/o 11.03.2024. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100229 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRAEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MOHAMMAD S/O. ALLISAB SHEIKH, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.

¶14

SMT.JAINABBI KOM MAHAMMAD @ MAHAMMAD ISAQ SHEIKH,

¶15

MALLIKARJUNRUDRAYYAKALMATH Digitallysigned byMALLIKARJUNRUDRAYYAKALMATHDate:2025.03.1216:56:25+0530

¶16

AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.

¶17

DIWANSAB HAYATSAB YERAJARI AGE: 61 YEARS, R/O. HERAVATTA VILLAGE, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. KARWAR.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2; V/O DATED 11.03.2024 REVISION PETITION AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (3) READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO RE-EXMINE THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF BOTH THE COURTS PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ALSO IN C.C.NO. 1044 OF 2007 AND 261 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC, DHARWAD AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 120-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi and Sri.Praveen Y.

¶27

Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for the parties.

¶28

State has filed the present revision petition challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial judge in CC No.1044/2007 and CC No.261/2011 confirming Crl.A.No.108/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 120-B R/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶29

Gist of the factual aspects which are utmost

¶30

necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶31

3.1 Accused No.3 Diwansab being the owner of Oil Refinery was the customer of Hubballi Urban Co-operative Bank who had a regular banking transaction. Accused No.1 Mohammad S/o Allisab sheikh, accused No.2 Smt.Jainabi being the residents of Heravatta village were introduced by the 3^rd accused to the complainant-Bank and he wanted

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶33

to obtain loan by pledging the immovable property bearing Sy.No.263, Plot No.110 and 111 measuring 4039 sq. mtrs., and obtained a loan.

¶34

3.2 Later on, it is reveled that the guarantee furnished by the accused persons was not free from encumbrance and there was deficiency in the title. When the same was noticed, a complaint came to be lodged by the Bank with Sub-urban Police Station, Dharwad who have in turn registered a case in Crime No.CEP NO. 46/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465 r/w Section 120B of IPC.

¶35

After the investigation charge sheet came to be

¶36

filed and respondent stood for trial.

¶37

After due trial, learned trial Magistrate noticed that the material evidence are not sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the respondents and therefore acquitted the accused by order dated 02.06.2015.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, appeal came to

¶41

be filed by the state against the order of acquittal in Crl.A.108/2015.

¶42

Learned judge in the first appellate Court secured the records after hearing the arguments of the parties in detail in the light of the appeal grounds, reappreciated the material on record and dismissed the appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

¶43

Being further aggrieved by the same, State has filed the present revision petition challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the first appellate court.

¶44

Sri.Praveena Y Devaraddiavara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the

¶45

Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record. Especially when the offence under Section 420, 465 and 120B is alleged against the accused

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶47

persons and material evidence on record would go to show that there was a fraudulent document which was furnished for obtaining the loan to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶48

Per contra, Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for

¶49

the accused-respondents No.1 and 2 (3^rd accused is no more) supports the impugned orders.

¶50

Having heard the arguments in detail, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶51

1) Whether the revision petitioner-State would make

¶52

out the case both the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity besides suffering from patent factual errors so as to call for interference in its revisional jurisdiction?

¶53

2) If so, what is the appropriate sentence?

¶54

3) What order?

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶57

Points No.1 and 2 :

¶58

In the case on hand, in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7. Among them, PW1 is the Manger of the bank viz., Anand Ranga Rao Joshi, PW.2-Anand Pathrota, PW.3-Gurunath Guddappanavar, PW.4-Sanjeev Kulkarni, PW.5K.Y.Doddamani, PW.6-S.S.Nagatana and PW.7M.Y.Muppinamath are the other witnesses.

¶59

Case of the prosecution predominantly hinged on documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence of the parties. According to the case of the prosecution, 3^rd accused (who is no more) introduced the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank for obtaining the financial assistance to the tune of rupees 22 lakhs.

¶60

Documents pertaining to the plot bearing Nos.110 and 111 in Sy.No.263 of Belur Industrial area was given as security for the said loan. It is the case of the prosecution that the security was a fake security.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶62

In order to establish the same, there is no positive evidence placed on record by the prosecution and more over entire loan amount is repaid and there is no wrongful loss caused to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the respondents.

¶63

Under such circumstances, ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 420 of IPC is not made out in the opinion of the learned trial judge which has been affirmed by the learned judge in the first appellate Court.

¶64

Insofar as offence under Section 465 of IPC is concerned, material evidence are hardly sufficient to record an order of conviction is the opinion formed by trial Court. Therefore, order of acquittal passed by the learned trial judge was upheld by the First Appellate Court.

¶65

It is settled principles of law and require no emphasis that an order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted Court would reinforce the innocence of the accused.

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4371 CRL.RP No. 100229 of 2017

¶67

Since the accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge which has been confirmed by the first appellate Court, respondents would now are clothed with not double innocence but triple innocence.

¶68

In a matter of this nature, the degree of proof that is required to be placed by the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt and only on suspicion, no conviction is permissible.

¶69

It is equally settled principles of law that any amount of suspicion would not take the seat of proof and if two views are permissible on the given set of facts and circumstances, the view that favours the accused must be preferred and not the view that favours the prosecution.

¶70

Applying these celebrated principles of law to the case on hand, since there is an order of acquittal which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court, in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the material evidence on record so as to hold that the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or

¶71