LexV.D. RAVEESHA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2265 : 2024 INSC 1060 V.D. Raveesha v. The State of Karnataka (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 980 of 2024) 22 October 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC – Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court – Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed – Correctness: Held: The accused has not denied availment of the loan from the Company and the subsequent sale of the vehicle made in favour of S – The petitioner has taken the stand that the documents are genuine and not forged and/or fabricated, when the entire evidence, both oral as well as documentary, clearly reveal to the contrary – There is no record, whatsoever, forthcoming to show that the accused had repaid the loan – Had the petitioner actually paid back the loan, it could have been demonstrated by bringing before the Courts documents to indicate that money was transferred from his account/source to the financier-Company – This has not been done – For the purposes of establishing the petitioner’s guilt, there was sufficient and reliable material, which rightly the Courts below have believed and relied upon – Thus, no infirmity in the same having been found, the conviction needs no interference – In the interest of justice, sentenced reduced to one year and six months’ simple imprisonment. [Paras 12, 18, 19] Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 and s.420 – Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating – Discussed. * Author 2266 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 and s.420 – Whether the petitioner, in the instant case, can be convicted both u/ss.406 and s.420 of IPC: Held: On an overall conspectus of the factual aspects juxtaposed with the evidence on record, as regards fulfilment of the ingredients of ss.406 and 420 of the IPC, at first sight, it may appear that the petitioner cannot be convicted both u/ss.406 and 420 of the IPC, but, in the present case, on a proper consideration of the issue in its entirety, there is a fine distinction inasmuch as, there are two different persons against whom the petitioner has committed the respective offences under the Sections supra – Evidently the petitioner is guilty of offence committed against the Company punishable u/s.406 of the IPC and also, of offence committed against M (PW4 and husband of purchaser S) punishable u/s.420 of the IPC. [Para 21] Case Law Cited Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024] 8 SCR 670 : (2024) 10 SCC 690 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Criminal breach of trust; Cheating; Vehicle; Loan; Default in repayment of loan; Forgery; Fabrication of documents. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 980 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLRP No. 653 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Anil C Nishani, Keshav Murthy, Jayram, Vishwesh R Murnal, M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers. Advs. for the Respondent: V. N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2267 V.D. Raveesha v. The State of Karnataka Judgment / Order of the S.upreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. The present petition impugns the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.653/2020, whereby the High Court confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2018 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’) which had affirmed the conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the petitioner, by the learned Additional Senior Civil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.