Rajesh @ Nataraj Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.494 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJESH @ NATARAJ S/o APPUNNI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT HEREBAILU POST MARASANIGE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN 577132

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE.E, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KAVOOR POLICE STATION, D.K REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.61/2015 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALORE D.K. IN C.C.NO.11/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶23

Accused No.1 who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.11/2013 sentenced as under, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.61/2015 is the revision petitioner:

¶24

“The accused persons are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and they are ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence committed by them under section 457 r/w 34 IPC.

¶25

Further the accused persons are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and they are ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence committed by them under section 380 r/w 34 IPC.

¶26

In failure to payment of fine amount, the accused persons shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The order of sentence imposed against the accused persons shall run concurrently.

¶30

The release of M.O-1 to the interim custody of P.W-1 and tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-19/B-8321 and Xylo Car bearing Regn.No.KA-19/C-5899 to the interim custody of respective R.C. owners is made absolute, after appeal period is over.

¶31

Office is directed to furnish certified copy of Judgment to the accused persons forthwith.”

¶32

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

¶33

3.1. A Complaint came to be lodged by Pushpananda Shetty with Kavoor Police Station, Mangaluru, alleging that on 27.02.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. at Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘KPTCL’) building of Kavoor junction, Mangaluru, accused No.1 to 6, with common intention, forcibly broke open the lock of the godown with the help of a hammer and trespassed into the godown of KPTCL, wherein electrical goods were stocked. Accused persons committed theft of those electrical goods and they transported the same in 20 bags containing bolt and nuts and other electrical goods worth Rs.1,62,250/- in a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-19/B-8321 and shifted the same to

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the house of the accused No.4 and also used a Xylo car bearing registration number KA-19/C-5899 for the commission of the theft.

¶37

Jurisdictional police after registering the case investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶38

Learned Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences on receipt of the charge sheet, summoned the accused persons and framed charges. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

¶39

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine thirteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and placed on record thirty material documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P30, apart from marking M.O.1 which consists of isolator, bolt and nuts, aluminium wire, connector and A/C clamp.

¶40

On behalf of the accused, two memos were placed on record which were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the oral

¶44

and documentary evidence placed on record, heard the arguments and convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.

¶45

Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petitioner and yet another accused by name Sharanappa filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.61/2015, whereas Manikantan @ Mani and three more accused persons filed a separate appeals in Crl.A.No.83/2015.

¶46

Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused persons and upheld the order of conviction and sentence.

¶47

Being further aggrieved by the same, first accused is before this Court in this revision.

¶48

Sri Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that co-accused persons have been given the benefit of acquittal by the Co-ordinate Bench and therefore, present petitioner is also to be acquitted.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

He would further contend that prosecution has not

¶52

been able to prove that it is the present petitioner who committed the theft and therefore, he is entitled for an order of acquittal.

¶53

He also points out that the prosecution has invoked Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and when Co-ordinate bench recorded an order of acquittal for the other accused persons, by sheer logic, present petitioner would also be entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of parity and also invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶54

Alternatively, Sri Suyog Herele E., contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period already undergone by the accused for about 15 days during the time of trial and custody period of one week before this Court where he has jumped the bail may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶55

Per contra, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds and supports the impugned judgments.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

He would also contend that recovery of the material

¶60

objects which are huge in quantity worth Rs.1,62,500/- could make it clear that it is the accused persons were responsible for committing the theft of M.O.1 which were transported in the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.K.A.19/B-8321 by the accused No.1, who was the driver of the said Tipper Lorry in 20 bags would establish the nature and gravity of the offence and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶61

He would further contend that no concession or leniency can be shown to the people like accused who have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by the owner of the Lorry and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto .

¶62

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

¶63

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner was the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.K.A.19/B-8321 and 20 bags of the thieved stolen articles were shifted to the house of accused No.1.

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Admittedly, present revision petitioner was the driver of said Tipper Lorry. Material evidence placed on record would also go to show that petitioner had also trespassed into the premises of the KPTCL and has actively taken part in filling the stolen articles in the bags and transported the same knowing fully well that those articles are stolen articles.

¶67

Thus, recovery of the stolen articles by the Investigation Agency and marking the same before the Court as M.O.1 would be sufficient proof for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

¶68

Admittedly, the lock was broke open and petitioner and other accused persons trespassed into the KPTCL godown and later on committed the theft.

¶69

These aspects of the matter would be sufficient enough to uphold the order of conviction having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction.

¶70

Mere acquittal of the other accused persons would not ipso facto make out a case for the present petitioner to seek an order of acquittal.

¶71

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

It is for the State to challenge the order of acquittal recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of other accused persons.

¶74

The scope of the revisional jurisdiction is well settled and this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter unless it is patently false or improper appreciation by both the Courts.

¶75

In the case on hand, no such patent factual error has been pointed out from the impugned judgments on behalf of the revision petitioner.

¶76

Thus, order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶77

This would take this Court to the next submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that accused has lost the job and is now eking out his livelihood with a different owner by driving a Lorry.

¶78

He would further contend that there are no criminal antecedents to the petitioner and he is a first time offender.

¶79

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Thus, taking note of the fact that the accused was

¶82

in custody for a period of fifteen days during the trial and a week when he jumped the bail before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the fine amount is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- which shall be payable by the accused on or before 30.04.2026 and set aside the remaining period of sentence, ends of justice would be met

¶83

Accordingly, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by directing him to pay the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.04.2026.

¶86

(iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, the sentence ordered by the learned Trial

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:19143 CRL.RP No. 494 of 2017

¶88