IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATEI) 'l'1iISTHE3 23% DAY OF FEBRUARY,_:?;'§i'1'0'v:-..f: .
BEFORE _ _
THI£HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ¢JAwAD«_RAH1MV'-"._ L"
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITioN::§o;'7/L2o'o9'
BETWEEN :
Narayana swan 1 2 _v
S / 0 Late }{e:Lde11'a-xi:-111,
Aged about 51 ya-"tears,
Residing at Nc:n.239. V 1 .
1st 'M' Block, 151' c:.:«()s;-;%w%%* g
Nagarabhavi 2""? "
Ballgalorc, 5 h
... PETITIONER
._ « '(1 5"y~s_fi;M'.'3fiash1dnar,Adv.)
AND: ' ' V .
1.
Ven};a§ es13. it-,€i= \/e’1:1l«::_iVtVe’:sh2’1ppa,
5 ‘~ ~45./0 .M__’1:~1;”J:_3’§’»”«1I’>~;%.3:.–1._ “”” H ‘V
Aged aboisi’ f5{T}”}{ea1″s.
2. EL*f1′.Sh_;’).’;ir1:::’i’1ff;11yV. v V
S/ 0 Vi-%11l<;a1<';*':';i_1::;'§
V Aged"'2<z}30,§n' f3-%l"'ye21;*s.
” ” Q’ I = :YG1a;§a1:7.l3’z::–,’.
‘ QS,/Q léx-fie M1.11’1i_va1ppa,
‘ _Aged– ‘».1.bouE. -45) years.
VT V. MuVni1T1;11’a:;;.1.i.2-111.
‘QS/O M1II’1E}’2L§’)1)2’1.
* Aged about 30 yca1’s.
All are x’e:..si{1i:1g___{ at
Jana1’i’:z’=1 (fiuicnxly.
Gidadhz”1§§m mt E:’1§’1E],11},F,
Srig’c11″1<'1;.:< i i '1 :1 1-«az-1v'c1I LI.
Ba1"1gz.1E1″:~.
W
-4-
evidence on record and acquitted them. Against it;”—.ggthe
complainant is in revision as the State has declined tuodcontinuep
to any further action.
7 . Learned counsel would assertiyely..coi1tend,that;lactwsfs
trespass; and causing threat to extort money” is fu1lyh’eAstablished
by PWl and through testimony oifiothers ‘theivfgsame is
corroborated. The Trial COL’.l’.’tz’:1P\7ElE~i_VA terro_ivu_in«failinglltovv note the
inculpating aspect in the absence of
explanation by the c He vseelks reversal of the
judgment.
8. Ina:.supplemeiritation”to”What is urged, I have examined
the records. Itais” toVV’be””notic”ed’ that, in the report Ex.P1 the
complainant eementionsfiof the accused being the absolute owners
“of question who were granted land by the
GoVern’m__e.nt’;’dads mtliey belonged to Scheduled Caste and
‘ScheduId”e–d Tribe. and entitled to get the property purchased from
lie refers to acquisition of title by the accused on
24.4’.–ll ’31” and also admits they are in continuous possession.
it ‘fiowe–v:er, he contends that. the accused had executed General
of Attorney in his favour and in terms of the same he
V. executed a deed of sale on 5.5.2006. The reason for obtaining
General Power of Attorney is that, there was a bar for
registration of sale deed.
-5-
9. The second stand is that he has constructed compound
wall to secure the property which the accused demolishedwith
an intention to extort Rs.6,00,000/~ from him. He H
in possession for two years but the averments in the CD:Ii’~1p.lC1iI)’1t,V
belie that statement.
10. Be that as it may, in the itself there
mention that the complainant ha.d”»paid llany’ .ainount”‘toll: the it
accused towards the value oyfthe property’/sale priceand even in
his evidence befo;rell§h-ep of obtaining
General Power which he executed the
sale deed Ramadevi. Nowhere he
claims to value of the property to be
entitled to _ownelr’shipi.Kionsedtiently it is to be noticed that, on
the complainaritl claims to have gone to the land in
asked the accused why they demolished the
l by i’»_.v.compou_nd wa.ll;liE3fi:t Manjunatha PW2 who was a witness to the
gives ta different version. According to him a shed on the
property”‘~*Nas demolished. There is no mention of compound
V” Accused have put a direct suggestion of PWi that the
yggaccused had obtained permission from the Panchayat and put
up a shed on the property. This suggestion though denied by
PW} is fully proved by evidence of PW2. Apart from it even if we
consider this evidence, in its totality it is a case of the
:§31’/
-5-
complainant. going over to the land which the accused claim to
be their own. There is no dispute that the accused_”h,ad”,”not2
executed any sale deed in favour of the comp1ainant,__or.hi.:sVV
It is only the complainant who has exec-u’ted* -:,loc”urn_ents’.1ik:e=sale’;
deed by Virtue of alleged (Power) authority conferred ._
deed or General Power of Attorney–,:itself “ill the
accused have denied having executed’. any suchwdociurnents.
Therefore, the charge for v’A.:$er:tion 447 was
certainly not tenable,::As_ the offence is
punishable undei’ Vll?C,,f_’thgelcolmplainant himself
says that ac()use’d..wahtted’ towards the sale price
of the property.. demand was raised it goes
out of mischiefu of because Rs.6,00,000/– was
clgaimedyytfolwards Value: of the property and not illegal demand
termed. in law as eictortion. That charge also fails.
threat to the life of the complainant is
concerned, it is ‘ noticed that, the accused had not gone to the
‘rofiincyident or to the place of the complainant. It is the
pon1pl.ai’nar1t who had gone to the land of the accused, which
i l–ar1d”according to him was owned by them.
12. The Trial Court was right in considering all the
circumstances to record that the evidence falls short legal proof
to establish charges levelled against the accused. The acquittal
-7-
of the accused by the Trial Court: is just and proper, neeéis no
interference.
In the circumstances revision is rejected.
aeAP/_