IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 01:' AUGUST, 2009 A-.[ _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NIRJUSTICE HUi.,UvAD,i1 C 1'
0121.. 12.13. No.20'4Ax2008A0cC2'w.
CRL.R.Ps. 205/2008, 2O6_/:C2'0Q8--VAN§'Ed?'/2608
BETWEEN
1. SMT MANJUL-A HEGDE. _
w/0 MANJ_UNATHA "
AGED 35'"Y§+:ARs--';--_V ' _ A
R/AT SATYASAI COLONY «_ *
NEARAPATE_L NA;GAEz_.
BE1.,LARY"w1_.. H . ...PETI'I'IONER
= A * ' ' (COMMON)
(BY SRITMANEUNCATPIEATIL, ADV.)
KARNATAKA
. '13:? GA.'1s:DH,1'NAGAR P s
' .._BEL:,ARx{. * ...RESPONDEN'i'
" 2 " mommom
E ~ «LBYVVSCRI ANAND K NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)
W'
CRL.R.P. NO.204/2008 IS FILED U/3397(1) CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TI-IATT'TI:"DiIS
HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE_V'"TI~i~E
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED-';INg
C.C.NO.139/O0 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.JMFC,",3BEALL'ARYv,---I'
DT.19.2.2005 AND CONFIRMED BY THE P.O., F.TC'.',~-..;BEI;LARY; D
HOLDING C/C. OF P.O., FTC--II, BELLARY,..'IN CRLV.4A*.§N»O§'17_fVO.'*3._V "
D'I'.31.12.2007.
CRL.R.P. NO.205/2008 ISFI-I.,_ED U,/,_S';397(A.I) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE FETITIONER FRAYING THAT THIS I
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEA_S'ED--..TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION I-'IND-.$EN'IfENCEV"PA'SSED IN
C.C.NO.140/00 ON THE FI-I~,E-OF TH.E"'--RjRL;J.MFC., BELLARY,
DT.19.2.2005 AND CONFIRMED BY THE.P;Q~..,__1~.".TC., BELLARY,
HOLDING C /c. OF_P.Q., F"'FC¥I'I», ':BEI.1;.ARY., IN-CRL.A.NO.I6/05
DT.29.12.200'7.
CRL.R.__P. 'NO-;2'-M5/200S"'IS«. FILED U/8.397(1) CR.P.C. BY
THE AD\.IOCATEif.FOR;VTHE,FETITI'ON'ER PRAYING THAT THIS
I_~iON*BLE.._ COURT=7NIA'Y»D"E.g'-IDLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF C_C')'i\TIV1CT1&(3»E\]..--~AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
C.C.N0.142u/O_O ONTHE FILE OF THE PRL.JMFC., BELLARY,
DT.19.2--.2005 AND CONF'-IRIVIED BY THE F.O., FTC, BELLARY,
.--'v.HOLD*I3NG_SC,/p. OF'-1F.VO1.,_FTC--II, BELLARY, IN CRL.A.NO.18/O5
DT.<I."I.200B.
'«-ICRDTR;-AF'; N'O}207/2008 IS FILED U/S.397(1) CR.P.C. BY
THE DADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
V .Hc)N'3LEv~._'"COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
-.jgv..4.I_'J,UDGM*EVNT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
* jC.C.vINO.143/00 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.JMFC., BELLARY,
ID9'.";?,.2005 AND CONFIRMED BY THE F.O., FTC, BELLARY,
--J.'.--HO.:I,D"ING C/C. OF P.O., FTC--II, BELLARY, IN CRL.A.NO.19/05
DT:2S. 1.2008. W
Lu
THESE REVESION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
HEARING TI-HS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
These revision petitions are f5.1ed’agaj11st_;«thetorder of
the Fast Track Court Bellaryt. in
19 /2005 and the petitioner hassotight f”o.r_ of
the conviction and théipri. JMFC,
Bellary in C.C.Nos. 139, E 1s4j3i},:..o::o.
2. against this petitioner for
the offe}j.ce_s.Ati’rEide_r_ 49¢; 420 and 468 of 190 by
different eornpia1na11tg’p’i*ie case of the prosecution is
that V» f;’§§h’is, petitionevr ciaiming herself to be Working as
do’et_o:r irii:Athje’«–hospita1 at Bellary assured that she would
appointed as Group-D employees
-V at Hospital. In connection with some other
‘V V’ “..:seo1nsp_iaint, the petitioner was arrested for collecting money
intoreter to get an appointment order. Based on which the
Heomplainants have filed the complaint, She is alleged to
W’
be posing herself as doctor by wearing stethoscope and
white coat and collecting money, assuring them
appointed in VIMS hospital and ultimately
cases, it was revealed that she has »cVb.e4ate_d ‘ar1d’.’;Vcolle’cted_ K”
the amount by making false assur’ancies”
posing herself as a doctor.
3. Different -been filed by
Gandhinagar Sections 419
and 420 of cases against the
petitioner.mIni.:.QplV peutitioihs, for similar offences,
cornplaintsi and based on which
charge~sheets’ After charges were framed,
.t’i’1€p l’ac{cu”tseed”..p1eaded'”not guilty and trial was held and
inoting’ “in’e~.d_i~fferent eases she made false assurance
_ that”‘sheV__’~’wi].l}get them appointed and collected advance of
it and told them that she will get them appointed
e._a’l”te’r–A”payrnent of remaining amount i.e., Rs.8,000/–.
T Certain witnesses were examined independently and
W
4. Heard.
5. In all these cases, the learned
recorded the evidence of the complainant
witnesses, viz., Raju, cook at GoV»ernmentl’raGu.e’st
who deposed that the petition_e1*,_visit’e.dl the
quite often to take meals time, she
assured to provide at VIMS
Hopsital, Bellatfyland /- to get the
said job and shlemposed herself as a
doctor fistethdscope. Referring to the
evidence”*.Qfl’the also eyewitness PW2, the
l\/Eagistrate ‘opined..Vt}’1a7t there is denial and acceptance
and ‘thereby commission of offence under
420 of IPC and thereby convicted the
ace’x.1_sed-petit_io’ner herein for the offences under Sections’
‘-4 19 an’dVV__42O of IPC independently.
38″”
6. In the appeals also the appellate Court” has
taken similar View that there is sufficient eVide’1:c:e..ei_io.n
record to hold the accused guilty of the offence_s’.;i—- it
7. The defence of the jithaifiiiv-.,,.._t]Ti:C”i
petitioner is a post–graduate, ‘Wife.’ of a’practiCingi.Adyo.:eate
and she is from a respectable_far1li1}”–»§Lrigift sifibmitted
that the petitioner has iiliiiderlgiiijgmeggimprisonment
for more than been falsely
implicated in cogent evidence
on recoreheie» set at liberty for the
period by reducing the sentence.
it is seen——tliat it is not the case that she has
‘breed ‘i’a.1:s”e_:1Vy:.iiniplticated in only one case, but altogether
there__iarev.foLir’i.cases registered against her and in each
3″~’«.___ic»ase shegiihas been independently prosecuted and tried
A fbiefore:ii.’the Magistrate. It is noticed that the petitioner was
i “”V..pif_etending as a doctor and inducing the complainant to
W”
8
pay the amount with dishonest intention to make
unlawful gain by cheating them. Even the learned
Magistrate has noted that non–seizure of Apron and
stethoscope is not material to the case and there
material objects and noted that non–seizure of .
stethoscope would not take way. __the_7″
prosecution. Apart from the evi’dence*~ ‘Vofii’~co’1n’p1Aaii?iant,:
what is being noted is the evidence of ‘eyewitnes’:3es;V»V They ” V
have deposed against the petiti.one’1*-.an.d nothing elicited
to discard their evidencellaisr the learned
Magistrartellanciithe lép’pe1’1ait’e c5i’irct’_”
9. Takirig:intofconsideration that she is a woman,
post–graduate h:aving”a child, the sentence imposed in
all ‘four cases n’iay'”‘be considered to run concurrently.
» =Iri,the_ result, the petitions are allowed in part.
The iorcieri oif”p:se’.ritence for the offences under Section 419
and is modified. It is suffice to order a
xv
9
sentence of only six months S1. for the offence under
Section 420 of EPC and she shall pay a fine of Rs.1,Ch)OO/~
with default sentence of two months S.I and _;fo_f-._’l_thve
offence under Section 419 of IPC, she shall
for one month and she shall pay a..fin_e of ll
default sentence of two months ofdef
payment of compensation tolelach of cvorfxgilairlants ‘ V
remains intact. It is orderedVAl-t~hat–.sentence’~in..a1l these
cases shall run concurrently also entitled for
the benefit of set–.offundefllSle’ction.l:?§–2§3l’ofCr.P.C.
Sd/-5
JUDGE
\71,”v-F5/~~*._ .. …..