IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.385/2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION Nos.386/2018, 387/2018, 388/2018, 389/2018, 390/2018, 391/2018, 392/2018, 393/2018 IN CRL.R.P. No.385/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY BILIKERE P.S., HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
5. KUMARA @ MAVUTHA S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR, 31 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, 5TH WARD, KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.100/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1188/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457, 380, 411 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.386/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, …PETITIONER HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.44/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1169/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457, 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.387/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY BILIKERE P.S., HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAINROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.97/2015 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1195/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 & 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P. No.388/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY BILIKERE P.S., HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D.NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.94/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1199/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 & 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.389/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D.NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, …PETITIONER 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
5. KUMARA @ MAVUTHA S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR, 31 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, 5TH WARD, KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.73/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1146/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457, 380 & 411 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P. No.390/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY BILIKERE POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D.NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
5. KUMARA @ MAVUTHA S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR, 31 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, 5TH WARD, KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.80/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1180/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457, 380 & 411 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P. No.391/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY BILIKERE POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D.NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
5. KUMARA @ MAVUTHA S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR, 31 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, 5TH WARD, KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.95/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1193/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457, 380 & 411 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.392/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D. NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, …PETITIONER NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.103/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1133/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 & 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.393/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE, HUNSUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-1 A/W SRI S.T.NAIK, HCGP) AND:
1. MAHESHA @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA SHETTY, 30 YEARS, D NO.4, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
…PETITIONER 2. MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O MUNIYAPPANAYAKA, 33 YEARS, D NO.28, 1ST WARD, RANGANATHA EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
3. CHENAPPA @ PETE S/O LATE KCP CHENNAPPA, 25 YEARS, C/O SHIVANNA, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HUNSUR-587 119.
4. G.SHANKARRAO @ RAYA S/O GANGARAM RAO, 27 YEARS, TEMPO TRAVELS, DRIVER NO.79, 1ST MAIN ROAD, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHASWAMY EXTENTION, HUNSUR-587 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.45/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNSUR. B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1151/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 & 380 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned SPP-I and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. The respondents herein are the accused persons in C.C.Nos.1188/2014, 1169/2014, 1195/2014, 1199/2014, 1146/2014, 1180/2014, 1193/2014, 1133/2014 and 1151/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. In all these cases, the fact that emanates from the records is that the accused persons during the night hours with a common intention trespassed by breaking open the lock and committed the theft of gas cylinder and sold it to accused No.5 and knowing fully well that it is a Government property, accused No.5 has purchased the same from accused No.4. Thereby, accused Nos.1 to 5 committed the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. The trial Court after trial and examination of the witnesses came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused respondents. The period of custody, which they have already undergone and they have also been given the set off and they were also permitted to pay the fine and default sentence was also passed. Since similar allegations are made in all the cases, but the dates and place of commission of the offences are different in all the cases. They were taken together for disposal. The trial Court has framed charges for the offences as stated above. After framing of the charges, all the accused persons after the trial have been convicted as stated above.
5. Challenging the inadequacy in the sentence, the State has preferred an appeal. The 1st Appellate Court after considering the material placed on record has dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, the State is before this Court.
6. It is specifically pleaded in the appeal regarding inadequacy of the sentence passed by the trial Court. The 1st Appellate Court in its order has in detail considered the effect of Sections 428 and 427 of Cr.P.C and by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court has held that in order to secure the benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the accused had to show that they had been detained in prison for the purpose of investigation, enquiry of trial of the case, for which, they were later on convicted and sentenced, such period can also be taken into consideration while imposing sentence.
7. Further, on perusing the period, for which they have already undergone and by taking into consideration the age of the accused that the 1st Appellate Court has also come to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and the appeals came to be dismissed.
8. This Court under the similar facts and circumstances of the case, in Crl.R.P.No.1318/2017 c/w Crl.R.P.No.1319/2017 by a detailed order has come to the conclusion that the appeals preferred by the State are not maintainable and there is no need to interfere with the order of the trial Courts and the revision petitions came to be dismissed as devoid of merits. The said ratio laid down in the above decision is aptly applicable to the present cases on hand. The accused persons in the above said cases are same in the present cases on hand. When the case is covered by co-ordinate bench, the same view holds good in these cases also.
9. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the appeals are devoid of merit. Hence, the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PB