L.Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 221 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.1.2016 PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TURUVEKERE IN

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:19144 CRL.RP No. 685 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

C.C.NO.482/2007 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 467 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 25.05.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10013/2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri M.N.Madhusudhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶25

Petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.482/2007 and sentenced as under:

¶26

“The accused submitted that this is the 1^st offence levelled against him, he is having aged parents and large Number of family members depends upon him.

¶27

The learned special public prosecutor submitted that the accused has misused the public money, as such maximum sentence shall be Imposed.

¶28

Heard both sides and I proceeds pass the following:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19144 CRL.RP No. 685 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The accused shall undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under section 467 of IPC.

¶34

Office is directed to issue free copy of judgment to the accused.”

¶35

The order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10013/2016. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal by its considered judgment dated 25.05.2017. Thereafter accused is before this court in this revision.

¶36

At the outset, Sri M.N.Madusudhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that petitioner has repaid sum of Rs.49,000/- which is the amount covered under the cheque where forgery has taken place.

¶37

Therefore, he seeks the lenience to be shown to the revision petitioner in setting aside the imprisonment period by enhancing the fine amount reasonably.

¶38

Per contra, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose such submission made on

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:19144 CRL.RP No. 685 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

behalf of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner being the Secretary of Haridasanahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) and he has misused the cheques bearing number 26216 and 26217, drawn on D.C.C. Bank, Tumakuru for his benefit and misappropriated the amount and therefore, no lenience can be shown to the revision petitioner.

¶43

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court bestowed its best attention to the material on record having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

¶44

Prosecution case is that accused has misused the

¶45

cheques belonging to the society and misappropriated the amount and which stands established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record including the handwriting expert report vide Ex.P10. Therefore, order of conviction needs to be maintained having regard to scope of revisional powers.

¶46

This would take this Court to the alternate submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner about the showing lenience to the petitioner.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:19144 CRL.RP No. 685 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Admittedly, he has repaid sum of Rs.49,000/- to

¶51

the Society which is the amount he has drawn under the forged cheques.

¶52

Further, petitioner is a first time offender and he has no antecedents. He has got a family to maintain an old aged mother, wife and a son. Accused is now aged 50 years and he is earning his livelihood through agriculture, having lost his job as the Secretary of the Society.

¶53

Taking note of these aspects of the matter if the custody period is modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/-, ends of justice would be met.

¶54

Portion of the fine amount can also be paid as compensation to the Society, which would further serve the ends of justice.

¶55

Accordingly, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 467 of

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:19144 CRL.RP No. 685 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Indian Penal Code, the sentence of one year imprisonment is modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the Court and to pay fine amount of Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.04.2026.

¶63

(iii) If the Petitioner fails to make the payment of Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.04.2026, the period of sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically.

¶64

(iv) On receipt of the entire fine amount, sum of Rs.60,000/is ordered to be paid as compensation to the Haridasanahalli, Milk Cooperative Society under due identification.

¶65

(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant.

¶66

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶67

MR

¶68

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 69

L.Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Shivakumar 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

Zakaulla Vs State by Union of India

Sri. M. R. Prashanth Vs Smt. Palakshi

Col K Tarun Bharguwar Sm Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh @ Nataraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs H Govindaraju

H B Chandrappa Vs Suresh S M