Noor Ahmed vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The courts below have held petitioner guilty of an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Therefore, petitioner is before this court. I have heard Sri B. Anand, learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.

This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

It is established from evidence on record that petitioner is a native of Bellary Town. He had come from Bellary to Bangalore by holding a fake identity card, which would given an impression that he was a staff member of KSRTC, Bellary Division, Bellary. On 17.01.2003, petitioner was travelling in BMTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-1254 plying on Route No. 304E and Conductor of bus demanded petitioner to purchase a ticket. The petitioner pleaded that he had free bus pass to travel in BMTC bus and showed Ex.P.2, which is a fake identity card held by petitioner. The petitioner was caught red-handed and taken to S.J. Park Police Station. The first information was registered against petitioner. On completion of investigation, final report was filed.

It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that petitioner hails from Bellary City. PW1 who was the Conductor of BMTC bus had no grievance to falsely implicate petitioner. PW1 and other witnesses did not have any reasons to falsely implicate petitioner. The identity card on which photo of petitioner has been affixed would clearly indicate that petitioner has committed the offences alleged against him. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution had no vengeance against petitioner. The apprehension of petitioner, when he tried to avoid purchasing bus ticket by showing fake identity card as bus pass has not been controverted. The witnesses for prosecution did not bear enmity, in fact they did not know petitioner. In the circumstances, it is hardly possible to accept the contention that petitioner was falsely implicated. The identity card held by petitioner, on the face of it indicates that it is a forged document. However, evidence on record does not indicate that petitioner had forged identity card, yet the fact remains, petitioner wanted to travel in BMTC bus without purchasing a ticket on the strength of forged identity card.

It is not established from evidence on record whether petitioner had derived any pecuniary advantage by showing fake identity card as bus pass. On the other hand, bus conductor (PW1) has deposed that petitioner had traveled from Corporation Bus Stop and he wanted to go to City Market. The distance between two points is 1 1/2 kilometers. At the relevant time, bus fare for travelling from Corporation Bus Stop to City Market was around Re. 1/-.

The petitioner was aged about 23 years at the time of incident. The trial court has not noticed these facts while imposing sentence. Therefore, sentence requires modification. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The revision petition is accepted in part. The impugned judgment of conviction for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC is confirmed. However, sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to six months and the rest of impugned judgment is confirmed.