11% ms HIGH comer or KARNATAKA . ' 'L ' %
cracurr macs: A1' nmmwna. M jg.
DASTED was THE 3"" DAY 01? " é T
"Em"-«._ . . 1
THE HOBPBLE hm. wswzcrx figs
camumn 1=zEv1s1oai4fram11f:?:1\a--s1o_N;~wTHiM;:vtAr>z11<A, *
EYADAGI TALE}!-{, Hm?.E1§1'1s31sTRic'? _ --
... PETITIONER
(By Sri : M V E~iIRE'f¢11§.'i'}~§,V£5'---.}L)A\A2'--.,_}
5.5?/...~D LA %%%%%
$3.3 :3'fA'I'.E OF'iiA3?NI§TAKA
R'/B S'I'&TiON,_:"H.OU8'E vCr~§";=m;2wAD ~
"-- (By S§j:' sgiszégwb K NAVALGEMATH, HCGP)
RESPGNDENT
' f ...,.'.i*I-'HS PETETEGN IS FELED EJJS; 39'? 015' GREG, PRAYENG TO;
ASE? ASIDE ms 032922 5'r,3,12.2oo3 mssm BY THE sgss1r4s
'*-._;rt';;a':)<:;E, HAVER1 EN CRLA. 3'~Jo.66/2087 Aim CONSEQUENTLY 'I'ER QF' CONVICTION awn SENTENCE
[":>2~.&fW-?*»~
2
':._.J
IQ
}f)'F.126. 10.200'? PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE {JR.DN.}
BYADGI AND ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITH cogfafi - _ 2
THIS Pmmou COMING on FOR ADM1'S;'§IQN;"':'I'HiS_E '* x
mm, THE coum' MADE THE FoLL0w'1NG:- «_ .«
onnnx' ""
This revision petition is the; of 'V
conviction and sentence dategi 26,.1{':.i.>."(_:}fi?"-£11 c.::; 1%. 3712/2005
passed by the Trial by the Lower
Appsiiate .;€3;;*};A;'i\'lV(3;66',1'2{,'9"FV§ vide judgment dated
.'3.12.2008. ':_ " _ V _ V? .
2, The VI")-(ijfi"t3"j()IViV5t:E' Acfiused No. 1 and respondent is the
_{:§3mplaéfi:;-‘1§1t’~hcfozw}é Court. in this judgment, for the
‘£~akr:’0f _c>3;:1v6:1;i;é12cc, the parties are referred to their status
, £3. ‘ §3.n~13_fl2.2()G5, accused No. 1 was on duty in the bus _
.bea1ing~.?$cx._ RA 2?; F29 belezcxging in the <:omp1aina13t~I<ISR'T(3,
question left Hawaii driven by Accused No.1 with
"of éiesel in the tank of the bus. Tha bus in qtmstiun
E9»
4
marked. After hearing argumtmts can bath skies, the Trial
Court framczd {allowing three points for its consideration:
*2}.
Whether the pmsecuticm proves
rsasonablss doubt that on 4.2.05 at about ll ‘ H
the rnomlng accused No.1 being;’tfie’eIfipl;)yef: lslii’ :l{Sfl§’f’C:
Institution and in such capacitl3§bl.3flAgl erlfflgétefi
the KSRTC Bus NQKA 2*i’,?.;f«*”i:2_oi the KsRfrti..§ne._t_’:uu¢;on
at the instigation of ar:.:ct.1s§:_(;l:lVl\l:;,2’V.l_1as lfitsafipmfifiated
about 80 liters of ii; lfiiicselllfank of the above
§:aa:icl_ paused loss to the tune of
RsA3;1:5C*Q/–‘%{_3lVt’ll’ie Institution in that regard by
_ ~ce;nm&~e.s;;g the ofierlcséé. of Criminal Breach of Trust with
125 {fie”‘ ‘above said property and thereby
ll fhe offence punishable under Section 408 of
A. ” IEC 1
the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
” I 4_ dliizbt that on the aforesaid date, time and piaoe,
accused No.1 abetted accused No.2 to take out the
diesel illegally in the diesel tank of the above said
KSR’I’C Bus with a dishonest intentinn to eormnit
miaappmpriatiam 0f 88 liters of removw diesel and thus
“R
beyo13e:i.._ 4’ _» .f.–lli- V” ”
abetted accused No.2 to commit the offcnc¢;”j5z1f§i§s§:§gi5£,:::4_ _
under Section 109 of IPC?
iii) Whether the prosecution pn§§rééb’b¢3 misappropriation
of the 80 liters and thereby
::vt:;1’sn€~4e’Vi3u;§is1v1;;iT.b¥é’ “‘u”]s 511 of I PC ?”
4. C9}: of and documentary evidence
on record, accused No.1 with the
active assistanzzé committed theft of 80 11:13 of
ifiae has i11Ai:fii£’:év.tiat)n at 4 am. on The
‘r:-3.31 appreciation of the eviclcnoe on record
— VV judgment convicting the accused and
sgéntcncing to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of
for the ofienoe mmishablc under Scene” II 408 and
V” finder Swtion 109 and levied a fine of Rs.100{}/- each.
by this judgment of conviction aad sentence, the
accused filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in
gym»
6
Cr1.A.No.66/2007 and the same came to be dismissed vide
judment dated 3.12.2008. Hence, this revision
accused No.1. Accused No.2 had not preferred any %
5. Though the matter is listed for ad1nissio11,”tl__iie
heard on merits by consent of learned ;’&dVoeate’.$ on
and perused the entire rev1s’ ion papers. i A 0
6. Sri Hinemath, learned Wlfie.
contends Witnnetsses i.e., P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7,
there is net’-other’ .evi:ience on recent} to support
and we case. Therefore, he contends
independent evidence, the impugned
jiictgxizezit and sentence are liable to be set aside.
deeiinet this contention of learned counsel for
éaeeusedx The Management of KSRTC received
information that theft of diesel is going on from
halt buses in the village side. In order to check the
H V A diesel, the mafiement constituted a Squad consisting
of Flws. 1, 6 and 7. On the night {ref 4.2.2005, at about 4 a.1n.,
the Squad red handedly caught accused Nos. _
committing theft of diesel from the bus question-..: ” ” =
the complaint filed before: the Police. A’
Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.Ws. 1′,
other. Though P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 is
nothing on record to di$bcii_x%f.e Itvvigé i;ot even
suggested in the cvidtmce of that there is
any enmity witnesses. In
the absence of iiitcrest on the part of
P.Ws. 1, 6 4Vi1o:’:i*e..§1:soz1& ‘fiévklfiigisbelievc the evidence of
these witneQ§sc:;§..«’. on careful appreciation
of cvidenc: of three fisifiiésses cozucuxmntly held that the
charge levelled against the accused.
it is conttmded that accused No.1 was a
_’§’ia:_;ie gficéder and in attic: to suppress the trade union
fianagement of the KSRFC fl-alsely implicated him.
u£;o’1:x;cention of accused No.1 is unfounded and them is
n ‘ 011 record ta justify the same. Accused No.1 has not
placed any material on record ta show that he was the Trade
@%m-
Union Leader in the KSRTC Management. .
Courts below noficcd the fact that “F€0:,i1’V. ”
Whispered a word with regard to his li*§uic –
statement rccordcd under section” 313′ _LIn_T§ tfie
absence of any such materia} on below
have rightly rejected the V. I he was
falsely implicated bythe
8. They r$§; ‘accused No.1 lastly
contendedv’V’i1:’£é1t certificates issued by
KSRTC accused No.1 for less
consumption <;)i"die'sc1Vin There is no dispute with
Mcmly because there are reward
that-*,r'£:ifi<A:Tat«=:As3" of accused No.1, it cannot be said that he
had fioikbomm' the crime in question. At one point of time,
éthch: have saved. diese} in discharge of his duty
§:émwqt;:=:ntIy he might have rewarded but that does not
_ has has not eommitttzd the crime in question. Again
' "It:;(VV;uf.:'}Vfa."thae Courts below have rightly conciuded that Exhs.D1 to
D3~rewa1d certificates in favour of accused No. 1 wifl not be of
any assistance to hold that he is not guilty of A'
question.
9. The Trial Court sentcncgd t};m :[%)1v” 1:IA:.1I£:~ ‘V
oflenccs punishable under 408 gimpb
impxisonmcnt fer a tzml of a fine
of Rs.1,000/-. So also fag} under
Section 109 of to undergo
simple years and fine; of
Rs. 1000/-.: ” “”” am sentenced to
undergo: #1 term of two years for the
ofiimce 408, 109 and Section 511 of
ifin ‘offis. LOW/~ and in default to pay the
fing; u11cié:§fgc§”‘s:i:j3zple imprisonment for three months. ‘i’he
onzitzmd that tbs sentences shall run.
¢cs3§:ur1e’i}.fl3}}: (311 the date of the incident, accused No.1 was
old accused No.2 was aged 28 years. There is no
_$’a€d§igcé ‘#313, record to shew that accused had a past history of
. A i1’3?i$é§> I3r :I:i’:i§V1é: Hezgéfit order.
19; “Fpr t’I.ie”:w¢éi5£rnsv’statcd above, the following:
ORBER
A[ The nervision petition is hereby partly
A allowed.
ii) The impugned judment of conviction
% passed by the Trial Court and ammcd by
the Lower Appellate Cmzrt is hereby
confirmed .
11
The impufied order of senfznce
the Trial Court in (3.0. No. 172/05 _
set aside. The matttjf is f’t;A1Vc3 9
Trial Court to
accordance
law laid down SupVit:r:#ué in
KESHAV i ‘S1TFAIéM§!I’.A Vs. firnfra 0;?
MAvHARAs;1f:’-125 s'<: 291) after
the petifioner
A T' " a%:cu–$éti . S2. _ —