IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.401/2018 BETWEEN:
State by Bilikere Police, Hunsur, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-01. ... Petitioner (By Sri. S.T. Naik, HCGP) AND:
1. Mahesha @ Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Mahadeva Shetty, 30 years, D.No.4, Ranganatha Extension, Hunsur-587 119.
2. Mahadeva @ Mahadevanayaka, S/o. Muniyappanayaka, 33 years, Do. No.28, 1st Ward, Ranganatha Extension, 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 Extension, Husnur-587 119.
5. Kumara @ Mavutha, S/o. Late Somashekar, 31 years, Auto Driver, 5th Ward, Kalkunike, Hunsur-587 119. ... Respondents This Crl.R.P is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.98/2015 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur etc.
This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for petitioner-State and perused the records.
2. The respondents herein are the accused persons in C.C.No.1191/2014 dated 02.01.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 read with 34 of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case is that on 01.07.2010, during night hours, accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention committed lurking house trespass by breaking open the lock of Government School of Chowdikatte village and committed theft of two gas cylinders and sold it to accused No.5, who knows well that the property was stolen property. Accused No.5 purchased the same from accused No.4 and thereby, they have committed the alleged offences.
4. As could be seen from the records, after investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet to the jurisdictional Court. The jurisdictional Court secured the presence of accused persons at that time, all the accused persons filed an application under Section 229 read with Section 241 of Cr.P.C., claiming that they wanted to plead guilty in this case unconditionally. They have also filed an individual affidavit admitting the guilt and claimed that from past five to six years, they were dodged to the Court and already they have suffered more than the punishment, which has been prescribed for the alleged offences. The trial Court after considering the application and after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.5 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. It also imposed the sentence by giving set off directed accused Nos.1 to 4 to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, Rs.100/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and accused No.5 is directed to pay Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.98/2015 before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur.
5. The learned Appellate Court, in detail considered the fact of Sections 427 and 428 of Cr.P.C., and by considering the fact that the accused Nos.1 to 4 were in judicial custody in respect of some other cases also and have already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than five years in connection with the said case, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ATUL MANUBHAI PAREKH VS. CBI reported in 2010 Crl.L.J Page 2113, has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the trial Court is correct and by considering in detail at paragraph No.19 of its judgment, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA reported in AIR 2012 SC 3802, has come to the definite conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in sentencing the accused in the manner that is done by giving set off to the period of imprisonment accused have already undergone.
6. On careful perusal of the said judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and also by re-looking the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents are not having any criminal antecedents and they have already undergone the period of imprisonment in some other cases as noted by the trial Court is also taken into consideration. It is a fundamental Rule of the criminal jurisprudence that when the parties deter themselves from committing similar offences in future, they have to realize their mistake that they have committed wrong and if they plead guilty, then under such circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court and by the First Appellate Court appears to be just and proper. In my opinion the State has not made out any grounds in the present petition and the present petition being devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
VBS Sd/- JUDGE