Partly allowed

Manjunath @ Manja v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026CRL.RP/378/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners convicted under Sections 454 and 380 IPC sought leniency in sentence. The High Court maintained conviction but held their two-month custody as imprisonment, enhancing fine to Rs.50,000 each, failing which original sentence stands restored.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; custody undergone treated as imprisonment with fine enhanced to Rs.50,000 each payable before Trial Court on or before 31.03.2026.

Manjunath @ Manja Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13759 CRL.RP No. 378 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 378 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH @ MANJA S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS LOKESH HOUSE, AYAPPA NAGAR, DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560062

¶9

MANU S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO.1057, 2ND CROSS AYAPPA NAGAR DODAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 062

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VIDYASAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S. REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPELX BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13759 CRL.RP No. 378 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-62) IN CRL.A.NO.446/2015 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.02.2015 PASSED BY THE II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9823/2012 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 454, 380 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Kemparaju and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

¶26

Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC in CC No.9823/2012 dated 28.02.2015 confirmed in Crl.A.No.446/2015 dated 22.01.2018.

¶27

At the outset, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that this Court, having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction may consider the question of sentence as recovery of the stolen articles has been established by the prosecution by placing necessary material

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:13759 CRL.RP No. 378 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

evidence on record including the recovery panchanama and the evidence of the pawn broker.

¶32

Stolen articles were identified by the complainant and same is also returned to the custody of the complainant as per the orders of the Court.

¶33

He would also submit that petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and are now eking out their livelihood by running a hotel business.

¶34

He would further submit that petitioners are now married and are leading a decent life. Therefore, the custody period already undergone by them may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that though no criminal antecedents are forthcoming insofar as petitioners are concerned taking note of the huge quantity of the gold ornaments which were stolen by the accused, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:13759 CRL.RP No. 378 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶40

On such perusal of the material on record, taking

¶41

note of the fact that incident has occurred when petitioners were in young age and have retraced their steps and are now leading a decent life and running hotel business and they being married and having children to maintain, taking also note of the fact that they were in custody for a period of two months and stolen articles have been recovered and are returned to the complainant, if custody period already undergone by them is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, ends of justice would be met.

¶42

10. Accordingly, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Petition is allowed in part.

¶45

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:13759 CRL.RP No. 378 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

custody period already undergone by the revision petitioners is to be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each payable by the revision petitioners before the Trial Court on or before 31.03.2026.

¶50

iii. If the revision petitioners fail to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 31.03.2026, sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically.

¶51

iv. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order for issue of modified conviction warrant.

¶52

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶53

KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Manjunath @ Manja v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath @ Manja v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohammed Isak Vs the State by

Karnataka Lokayukta, Vs S.P.Nagaraju

Mr K Jayanna Vs State by Kadur Police

Smt Indira Vs Sri Manjunath

Ayaz M Vs K N Sudheendra

Sri P a Shashikumar Vs the State of Karnataka