Sri Mohammed Isak Vs the State by — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Mohammed Isak Vs the State by — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Section 379 IPC maintained; sentence of two years' imprisonment set aside; three days' custody already undergone treated as period of imprisonment; fine enhanced to Rs.30,000/- payable on or before 31.03.2026; on failure to pay the enhanced fine, the remaining portion of the sentence to be undergone.

Issue for consideration

Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act ought to have been extended to the petitioner, who is admittedly a first-time offender convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is admittedly a first-time offender, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been extended to him.

Ratio / Principle

No such benefit was extended by the learned Trial Magistrate, and the omission was not even properly considered by the First Appellate Court.

Key takeaways

Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be met by upholding the order of conviction while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and directing payment of an enhanced fine amount.ratio¶28
The revision petition is allowed in part: the conviction of the accused is maintained, the custody period of three days already undergone is treated as the period of imprisonment, and the fine amount is enhanced to a sum of Rs.30,000/- payable on or before 31.03.2026.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition No. 583 of 2018 filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (docketed as 397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)): The revision petitioner, a driver aged about 29 years, had been convicted in C.C.No.676/2016 (II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, judgment dated 18.09.2017) for the offence under Section 379 IPC for theft of sand belonging to the Government, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a fine of Rs.10,000/- and default simple imprisonment of three months; the conviction was confirmed in CRL.A.No.165/2017 (II Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, judgment dated 23.03.2018). The Court observed that the petitioner is admittedly a first-time offender, and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been extended to him; however, no such benefit was extended by the learned Trial Magistrate and the omission was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the Court allowed the revision petition in part, set aside the sentence of imprisonment, treated the three days of custody already undergone as the period of imprisonment, and enhanced the fine to Rs.30,000/- payable on or before 31.03.2026, with a direction that on failure to pay the enhanced fine the accused shall undergo the remaining portion of the sentence.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13724 CRL.RP No. 583 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.583 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SRI MOHAMMED ISAK S/ O K M ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DRIVER RESIDING AT K TALAGURU MUDIGERE TALUK-577 132

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE BY ALDUR POLICE -577 132 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BANGALORE

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.No.165/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED 23.03.2018 AND IN C.C.No.676/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED 18.09.2017, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN HOLDING HIM GUILTY OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 379 IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 YEARS AND ALSO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-AND ON

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13724 CRL.RP No. 583 of 2018

HC-KAR

DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS.

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Udaya Prakash M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

Revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code for having thieved the sand belonging to the Government in C.C.No.676/2016, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.165/2017.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a first time offender. Under such circumstances, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should have been extended to the petitioner.

However, no such benefit is extended to the petitioner by learned Trial Magistrate which was not even properly considered by the First Appellate Court.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13724 CRL.RP No. 583 of 2018

HC-KAR

Therefore, having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances, if the order of conviction is upheld and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside by directing the petitioner to pay enhanced fine amount, ends of justice would be met.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part .

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused, custody period of three days already undergone by the accused at the time of crime is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.30,000/- payable on or before 31.03.2026.

(iii) If the accused failed to pay the enhanced fine amount, he shall undergo the remaining portion of the sentence.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65