V i Sri I?2'é;{::t3i{%ris}:1£1a.A.V, HCGP', for Respondent]
_ AA Revision Petition filed under Secfiaas 397 and 401
.’ rprayizlg to sat aside the Judgxnent and order daicd
2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, FTC–I, Shimoga in C:ri.A.
‘4%.:§o;%5s;2o97 and the order dated 21.5.2049? passad by the
“~Adaiaona1 cm; Judge (S1-.m:;) and JMFG, Sagar in <::.<::.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA1..Q3E
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY 0%' JULY 2008 'f L
BEFORE
THE H{)2\E'8LE Mr JUSTXCE, s:L:,B4I};A;4§i~1'V}:3£é;;£3'§""
CRIMINAL mazwszow PETIT§.{)P§;'_'i\z'€}*4841266$'
Between:
1. Y. GJ-“‘re’1$hant V
s/0 Gopi, Major _
Occ: Metal Vessal Merchant
R/0 Gazlgaparamcshwari F?r;;ad_ V
Saga: Town _ V’
2. SA Vignes}:fWa:a@”Bab1i-ff-._ ” _ ”
s]oShivana11dz3,. ” «. V
aged abou,£”2.’*.9ye’m-s “f;
r/0 Ga.11gapa1’axxié:S?:1v\?ar.iA k’e:}ad___ _ ‘
Sagar town ” :¥’E”i’I’f’IONERS
( By S1″i..R.B.De’§V}:;§and€:, Advécate)
Karga1′;;;;1ice’_stat:g2a :RESPONDEN’I’
No.61/2606 am} acquit the petitioners of ail the charges levelled
against them.
V V
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission this
day, thc Court made the fo}1wi11g:–
This mvision is directed agai11s9é,4tt1ti”‘Jfid@1.r;enf’t;f’Vcfinsfiiifion ”
anci order of sentence in CC Nci’.€»..1__/
Appeal No.55] 209?. The Kargal p«’r;ii<":V';%{'c7t;5a1*g"té4siV1:c:'§:;'ted:vvfthc accused
herein and another for the und~'$rVSect:ions 380
and 457 I.P.C.. The Acjase of on 26.2.2003,
accused N031 "c293:-V:ir«13121',t theft, they brake
upon the 1o<'§.:1€{!:V Jain Basadi anti
1ZI'f2S}}¢€lSS€(:V{'V;iIfi3{3" theft of metal idols of Sxi
Shanthi11a£11a" and Jawalamalini Amma
murthy V?or1yh"" lakh and Rupees three lakhs
A "§'.:\}3f.&_;4~i{"invcstigafing Officer, Virajpetc, got credible
' VV'Vi:_1fo:'n1:§ii:i.on.«." three persons staying in Bhagralakshmi Lodge,
trying to sell metal idols. He secured the staff P.W.4
§'.V'£–.f6 and went to the Bhagyalakshmi Lodge aiong with two
V Endapfendent wit1:1esses- P.Ws I and 2. Accused were found in
No.129 of the said lodge. O11 enquiry, they revealed the
V' possession of two idols. The seizure mahazar was cirawn as per
Ex.P.1. P.W.7 is the Receptionist of the said lodge. fie identified
" (iisbeiieve the evidence of these Witnesses.
found that there is nothing to ciisbelieve the evidence of
p}'OS€iC"£1tiOI1 and nothing is elicited in ihe cm$s–exa£?§inefion.
Accused have (ienied the e1:zt:ire case of the "
court found that the recovery is ad::1itted,A tee o§*.«me:«
property is admitted and nothing has:"bee's;ee1ici£ea: "b;%V
in the oross–exan3j11atio;n of "the wifneeeee "that the
ofiences punishable 1.1I1dCI"'SCC'!iOIV1__S_ 'aged i.,i?.C. proved.
5. Learned counse1_fo§’: that except
recovery of M.0i.”1′ no is placed by the
prosecution V. under Section, 45′? or
Section _v entire evidence, if it is
considere<::1";_&it:: tee recovery and nothing more
than that. T}je"'pioeeco£:§o:}# ierequized to prove the offence beyond
_.JL,.5_:as13,f:..ixi1″;>.lv.%:E (_iO1″£;)t, ~ , ….. <4 .
._ Pleader submitted that, in a case of
' 13.ouse-Lbxeaififig theft it is not possible to get an eye–~wimess to
5iCۤ16..Of':.g;ecu1'zence and at best it is only Ehe circumstantial
has to be taken into consideration. He relies! upon
£eze,,_e;3ide3;:ce of P.Ws.14, 4 and 6 who went to the lodge and
-recovered the property and submits that there ie no reason to
He submitted that the
accused have not ciaimed the property as their own nor have
;\%_..
Both the Courts have concurrently foams} that the offence is proved
against the accused which in my opinien does I}£”!ET” for
interference. Accardingly, the revision _pe:1:it:io11 is _
8. At this stage, the learned couxzsel “~?£1f1e~A./flpctmtidifizr
submitted that the petitioners are notj.hab§f1:al”oiTe:1’d§mu 1161*’ V
is any other cases: rcigistered agafurmt thém and 33371;. A$’11§3m§.tSVthat
they are the earning membars of “familyVantfifv-3th§év;’$é§1tence is
not reduced. it will afikdi’thei3*””fa11$.§1y “a;1d their ””dependents..
(ionsid-sizing the same, the: ;_’I’hc accused shall
undergo sixnple two years for the
oifence p11;::V1is11::’:’_¥:[}Ic:Tvj’,;&11:_1¢VcI:V:’=::.tf’ Sééfityn. I.P.C and twe yaars fer the:
offence punishaiaie VSéc-.t§.bn”’38G I.P.C. Accused to pay a fine
of 123.2090; ~ea-Ah’ 31¢ ¢f£eiié£.e punishable under Section 380 {PC
– Erzgch ff§fV”fliév offence punishable under Sectimz 45′?
IF’€’L.__.i1″:>.V u:;::igit=:rgc3 further scmtance of three months each.
‘ 1;}’xtE;£§é sevnféjéggzézs to run concurrently. If the accused have
aimady undéiigane thg S€I}.t¢'”:I;l€€S, the same may be given set–ofi’.
Sd/.-
Judge
nk