Blog

The criminal revision petition is filed under section 397 ( speaks about calling for records to exercise powers of revision) with 401( High court’s power of revision) of CRPC by the Accused to set aside the judgement and order of conviction on 17/07/2019 by the principal civil judge and judicial magistrate first class and again the same judgement is confirmed by the Additional session judge , but it was allowed by High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA in the case between chiranjeevi vs State of Karnataka (C.R.P. NO.1395/2021) on 20th December 2021

Brief facts of the case are that the sri Umesh, learned counsel representing Sri R.B.Deshpande, for the Revision Petitioners and Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and perused the records.

Accused presented before the honourable court challenging the judgement of the judicial magistrate first class and additional session judge to the conviction of the Accused.

A Complaint was logged by the Complainant , contending that on 03.10.2011 at about 2.30 a.m., when the complainant while returning from his routine business that is milk vending and curd at various branches and by collecting the amount in the milk van bearing No.AP-03-Y-2307 near the land of one Narasimhappa on Venkatapura Gounipalli Road, accused Nos.1 to 3 came in Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-AH-5382 and intercepted the milk van and used the force and smeared the chilly powder into the eyes of the complainant and took away Rs.49,462/- from the custody of the complainant. The jurisdictional Police after registering the case, investigated the matter in detail and filed a charge sheet against the accused/Revision Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC.

The position of the accused persons were secured and arrested by the police and charge sheet was filed against them for the offences they have committed. Accused Nos.1 to 3 Pleaded not guilty and case against accused No.4 came to be bifurcated by filing split up charge sheet. Since the acused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses including the Complainant, mahazer witnesses and investigating agency as prosecution witnesses from 1 to 12 and in all 17 documents were relied as Exs.P1 to 17. Prosecution also relied on the material objects namely knife, chilly powder, mobile telephone, Rs.7,000/- cash, china set mobile phone, mobile sim and cash of Rs.8,000/-, Rs.6,500/- and Rs.5,342/- cash bags as MOs.1 to 12.

On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as contemplated under Section 313Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused persons denied all the incriminatory circumstances. However, they did not offer their version to the incident by examining themselves or by placing written submission as is contemplated under section 313(5) Cr.PC.

After hearing both the parties, the trail magistrate passed an order of conviction covicting an accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as refered to earlier.

Being aggrieved by the order of trail magistrate , accused persons Preferred an appeal before the Sessions Cour. Learned Judge in the first appellate court after securing the records and hearing both the parties in detail and after re-appreciating the materials available on record, ultimately dismissed the appeal of the accused persons confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Magistrate by judgment Dated 8/10/2021.

Being aggrieved by the order of session court, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have decided to go for revision petition with the following grounds:

That conviction and sentence passed by he courts below are contrary to law, evidence On record and probabilities of the case; That courts below have not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in proper prospective; That judgments of courts below are illegal, arbitrary, capricious and opposed to Sound principles of law; That courts below have committed serious error in convicting the petitioners when The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the petitioners; etc.

Reiterating the above grounds Sri Umesh learned counsel from the applent side contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the materials available on record and falsely convicted the accused persons resulting in miscarriage of the justice and therefore, asked for allowing the revision petition. He also contended that since the accused persons are the first time offenders without any criminal antecedents, the trial Court and First appellate Court ought to have considered the grant of probation to the Revision.

On the other hand, learned high court government pleader supported the impugned judgment contending that after registering the case police were able to apprehend accused Nos.1 to 3 and recovered whole cash which was stolen and the case bag which was in the custody of the complainant as on the date of incident and same has been marked before the trial Court and why would the police implant such huge cash only with an intention to get false conviction against the accused persons in the absence of any previous animosity and therefore, judgment of the trial Magistrate is based on sound and logical reasons and same has been properly reappreciated by the learned Judge in the first appellate Court in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

Insofar as alternate plea is concerned, if the accused persons shown any leniency, the same would send Wrong message to the Society at large and sentence ordered by the court must act as a deter to such perpetrators Of the crime and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in too.

In view of the rival contentions and having regard to the scope of the Revisional jurisdiction, the following points would arise for consideration such as:

“1.Whether the finding recorded by the trial magistrate that accused persons are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and confirmed by first appellate court is suffering from patent factual defects, legal infirmity, perversity or error of Jurisdiction and thus, calls for interference? 2.Whether the sentence is excessive?”

Regard to the scope of the Revisional jurisdiction, this Court reconsidered the materials available on record and is satisfied that none of grounds urged in the revision petition holds merit so as to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

The court relied on the precedent of Chandreshwar Sharma Vs State of Bihar Where the court released the accused released the accused on the ground that a bond of certain sum shall be deposited and to receive the same sentence when called upon to do so. In case of Gulzar vs state of MP same was held.

After hearing both the council’s and records presented presented by their learned council before the honorable court, court allowed the criminal revision petition and directed the accused persons to execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, which shall be in force for a period of two years for their good behavior.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra