Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Korachara Nagaraj @ Yeradethinahalli Naga, was convicted by the trial court (C.J.(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Huvinahadagali) in C.C.No.445/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. The appellate court (FTC-III, Hospet) in Crl.A.No.103/2009 confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka. The factual matrix reveals that the complainant, Shivaraj, received a mobile call from the accused about having gold in his possession, which led to the cheating. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Conviction upheld - The petitioner was convicted for cheating the complainant by selling fake gold. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the petitioner guilty. The High Court in revision found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC for cheating is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.
Law Points
- Cheating
- Section 420 IPC
- Criminal Revision
- Conviction upheld
- Appellate court confirmation
- Sentencing
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (12) 10
Criminal Revision Petition No.562 of 2011
S.G. Rajendra Reddy (for petitioner), Thejesh P. (HCGP for respondent)
Korachara Nagaraj @ Yeradethinahalli Naga
State by Huvinahadagali Police
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted for cheating the complainant by selling fake gold.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to three years RI and fine of Rs.3,000/-. Appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 420 IPC is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for setting aside the conviction.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the guilt of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC were found to be based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted in revision.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed by accused no.1 challenging the judgment rendered by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.103/2009 dated 10.01.2011 dismissing the appeal and confirming of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in C.C.No.445/2008 dated 20.07.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the petitioner in C.C.No.445/2008 on 20.07.2009. The petitioner appealed to the FTC-III, Hospet in Crl.A.No.103/2009, which was dismissed on 10.01.2011. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 397, 401
