ORDER : These criminal revision petitions are filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., by accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively, challenging the common judgment of conviction dated 10.6.2010 passed in C.C.Nos.482/2008 and 843/2009, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Huvina Hadagali, convicting the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months and also questioning the confirmation of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.Nos.58/2010 and 59/2010 passed on 7.7.2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court -III at Hospet. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons/revision petitioners herein along with other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the complainant called him near the bus stand of Holalu village and gave an impression that they got 2½ kgs. of gold coins which was found by them while digging the basement of the house for Ashraya Yojana and they intended to sell the same for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution that at the first instance, the accused gave five gold coins which were genuine in nature and the same was subjected to appraisal and it was confirmed that the same are gold coins and thereafter made the complainant to believe that entire gold coins to the tune of 2 kgs. 650 grams are genuine. However, the same were brass quoted with gold and cheated the complainant by collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the case was registered against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and accused Nos.3 and 4 were absconding. The Trial Court subsequently split up the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 and proceeded against accused Nos.1 and 2. After examining some of the witnesses, accused No.3 was arrested in connection with other case and he was secured through body warrant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial in C.C.No.482/2008 and accused No.3 subsequent to his securing, was subjected to trial in C.C.No.843/2009. However, common judgment was pronounced after recording the evidence. 4. After examining some of the witnesses, accused No.3 was arrested in connection with other case and he was secured through body warrant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial in C.C.No.482/2008 and accused No.3 subsequent to his securing, was subjected to trial in C.C.No.843/2009. However, common judgment was pronounced after recording the evidence. 4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 6(a). Accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to 3. The prosecution relied upon M.Os.1 to 3. The Trial Judge after recording the evidence, subjected accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter heard both the prosecutor as well as the defence counsel and convicted the accused and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.58/2010 and accused Nos.2 and 3 filed their separate appeal in Crl.A.No.59/2010. The Appellate Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petitions are filed before this Court. 6. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2216/2011 mainly contended that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the very seizure of five gold coins which are marked as M.O.1 and seizure of M.O.2 gold coated brass coin weighing about 2½ kgs. has not been proved by the prosecution. The spot panchanama Ex.P2, seizure panchanama Exs.P3 and 4 have not been proved by the prosecution since the witnesses who have been examined as P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. The identification of accused No.1 at Mangalore jail is not in accordance with law and the identification of accused No.1 by the witness in the Court is inadmissible. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that the revision petitioners have obtained Rs.10,00,000/-from P.W.1. There is no recovery of money from the revision petitioner. This itself goes to show that the complaint is false and concocted. 8. The other contention is that the petitioner is entirely different and he is not Manjunath and his name is Hospet Hemant. There is no recovery of money from the revision petitioner. This itself goes to show that the complaint is false and concocted. 8. The other contention is that the petitioner is entirely different and he is not Manjunath and his name is Hospet Hemant. Merely because he was arrested in a false case at Mangalore, he has been falsely implicated in the case and to prove the defence that said Manjunath is totally different person, document Exs.D1 to 3 are produced and the same has not been considered. The complainant has also not placed any material before the Court to prove that he was having huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is erroneous. 9. The petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2218/2011 (accused No.2) would contend that the evidence led by the prosecution has not been proved and the same is not corroborated by any other circumstantial evidence and the witnesses who have been examined, have turned hostile. The very presence of P.W.13 itself was disproved in the cross-examination more so he never speaks about the presence of the present petitioner. P.W.1 and other witnesses have failed to identify the petitioner and the identification parade is not conducted as enumerated by law. It is also contended that P.Ws.1 to 5 are none other than the brothers and relatives of P.W.1 and they are interested witnesses. P.W.13 though he is an independent witness, his evidence cannot be believed. The other contention is that it is the case of P.W.1 that the amount was drawn from the Canara Bank, but not even a single document is produced to show that he had the capacity to give such a huge amount. 10. The petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2221/2011 reiterated the grounds urged in other two criminal revision petitions. Apart from that, it is contended that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to understand the import of the provisions contained in Section 273 of Cr.P.C. and the evidence led against the petitioner is not in accordance with law. Hence, the entire proceedings vitiates. The very finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that both the courts failed to notice that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. 11. Hence, the entire proceedings vitiates. The very finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that both the courts failed to notice that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. 11. The respective counsels appearing for the petitioners have reiterated their contentions in their oral arguments. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.3/revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2221/2011 mainly contended that accused No.3 was subsequently arrested and brought before the Court and there is a technical error in relying upon the evidence which has already been led against accused Nos.1 and 2 and also against this revision petitioner and the same is against the mandate as contemplated under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the trial made against accused No.3 is vitiated. The counsel would also contend that there is no reference in the order with regard to adopting the evidence of the witnesses. The counsel would contend that 11 witnesses have already been examined and the evidence against accused No.3 is not in compliance with Section 273 of Cr.P.C and hence the same has to be discarded and the accused No.3/revision petitioner is entitled for acquittal. 13. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.2216/2011 and 2218/2011 would contend that according to the prosecution the incident took place on 14.4.2008 near the petrol bunk and prior to that they met the accused persons on 10.3.2008 and the evidence of the witnesses, particularly P.W.1 to 5, is contrary to each other. P.W.1 identified accused No.1 at Mangalore jail and the said identification is not in accordance with law and no test identification parade is conducted. There is no documentary proof for having recovered the amount from the accused and also no documentary evidence is placed before the Court that huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/-was withdrawn from the Bank. Except the complainant party, none have supported the case of the prosecution including the panch witnesses. It is also emerged that the statement was given through phone by most of the witnesses. Hence, the prosecution evidence cannot be believed. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2216/2011 would also contend that there was a delay of 14 days in registering the case. It is also emerged that the statement was given through phone by most of the witnesses. Hence, the prosecution evidence cannot be believed. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2216/2011 would also contend that there was a delay of 14 days in registering the case. P.W.6 to 9 are the recovery panchnama witnesses who did not support the case and this revision petitioner is not identified by any witnesses and there was no recovery from him and no call details are placed before the Court. No source of Rs.10,00,000/-is deposed before the Court. 15. The counsel would also contend that the Trial Court also did not consider the very proviso of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. to grant the benefit. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRESHWAR SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2000) 9 SCC 245 . 16. The counsel appearing for the State in his argument would contend that the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have specifically deposed that they met these accused persons at the first instance and also identified the accused persons and the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 is consistent. 17. P.W.10 who is the Investigating Officer also supports the case of the prosecution. The gold smiths, i.e., the appraiser of both the genuine gold coins and gold quoted brass coins are also examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13 and they supported the case of the prosecution. Accused No.1 gave the voluntary statement and recovery of Rs.50,000/- was also made. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 corroborates each other. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied upon their evidence and rightly convicted the accused persons/revision petitioners. There is no error committed by both the courts in appreciation of the evidence and the scope of revision is very limited. There is no error committed by both the courts. Hence, this Court cannot entertain the criminal revision petitions to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the revision petitioners and hence, all the criminal revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. There is no error committed by both the courts. Hence, this Court cannot entertain the criminal revision petitions to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the revision petitioners and hence, all the criminal revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also counsel for the State and also considering the grounds urged in the revision petitions, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the judgment and conviction passed against the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2221/2011 is liable to be quashed for non-compliance of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. and the trial conducted against the revision petitioner vitiates? (ii) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.2216/2011 and 2218/2011 and sentencing them for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revision jurisdiction? (iii) What order? Point No.(i) 19. Before considering the grounds urged in the criminal revision petitions on merits, it is appropriate to consider the technical grounds urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners with regard to non-compliance of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 273 of Cr.P.C., there is no need to consider the other grounds urged in the criminal revision petitions. Hence, the technical grounds urged before this Court is taken at the earliest point in time to consider the same. 20. In view of the contentions raised by the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2221/2011 with regard to noncompliance of Section 273 of Cr.P.C., it is appropriate to extract Section 273 of Cr.P.C., which reads as hereunder: “273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.-Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader: Explanation.-In this section, “accused” “includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced under this Code.” 21. On careful perusal and reading of Section 273 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused. The exception provided for this mandatory requirement is when the personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with. But, even in that situation, the evidence has to be recorded in the presence of his pleader. There is no exception provided with regard to absconding accused either under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. or any other provision to the effect that the evidence can be recorded in the absence of the accused. Hence, it is mandatory that the evidence has to be recorded in the presence of the accused. 22. Now this Court has to analyze the procedure followed by the Trial Court in recording the evidence of the witnesses in respect of the revision petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No.3. On perusal of the order sheet of C.C.No.482/2008, which was registered against all the accused clearly discloses that this revision petitioner was absconding. The order sheet dated 19.03.2009 discloses that the Trial Court passed an order to split up the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 and also directed to file separate charge sheet against accused Nos.3 and 4, who were absconding. It is also pertinent to note that the witnesses C.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 in C.C.No.482/2008 on 13.08.2009 and exhibits and material objects are marked. In the meanwhile, an order has been sought on 31.08.2009 to issue body warrant against this revision petitioner since, he was arrested in another case at Mangaluru and accordingly, body warrant was issued. This revision petitioner was produced on 08.09.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 23. It is also important to note that C.Ws.3 to 5 were examined on 08.09.2009 in C.C.No.482/2008. In the very same proceedings, the bail application of this revision petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.09.2009 and thereafter, directed to file split up charge sheet. That on 26.09.2009, split up charge sheet was filed against this petitioner and the same was registered as C.C.No.843/2009 and directed to furnish copy of the charge sheet to accused No.3 and posted for framing of charges against accused No.3. Thereafter, the jail custody against accused No.3 was extended and subsequently, proceedings were initiated against accused No.3. 24. That on 26.09.2009, split up charge sheet was filed against this petitioner and the same was registered as C.C.No.843/2009 and directed to furnish copy of the charge sheet to accused No.3 and posted for framing of charges against accused No.3. Thereafter, the jail custody against accused No.3 was extended and subsequently, proceedings were initiated against accused No.3. 24. On perusal of the order sheet in C.C.No.843/2009, it is clear that vide order dated 26.09.2009, the matter was adjourned to 29.09.2009 and ultimately case against accused No.4 was also split up on 03.10.2009 and charges were framed against this revision petitioner on 07.10.2009 and he did not plead guilty and claimed for trial. Hence, witness summons were issued to C.Ws.1 to 4 and the witnesses C.Ws.1 to 5 were secured on 11.11.2009. The Additional Public Prosecutor made the submission under Section 91 of C.P.C. to adopt the evidence in C.C.No.482/2008 and adopt the documents which are marked in the said case and also material objects as evidence against this witness as well and thereafter issued witness summons to C.Ws.6 to 10. On perusal of the order sheet dated 11.11.2009, it is also evident that when the evidence was adopted by the Trial Court, the accused did not object for the same. 25. It is important to note that on perusal of the depositions of the witnesses, who have been examined on 11.11.2009 it is evident that the witnesses have deposed to the effect that the evidence which has already been given in C.C.No.482/2008 be adopted and considered. Accordingly, the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the records, the evidence of the witnesses, who have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 in C.C.No.482/2008 were not placed on record in C.C.No.843/2009. No doubt, in the evidence, the witnesses have spoken with regard to the very presence of the accused at the time of making representation to the witness with the sample gold coin. The other witnesses P.Ws.6 to 14 are examined subsequent to securing the presence of this revision petitioner. No doubt, on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, it is clear that evidence has been recorded by the Trial Court. 26. The other witnesses P.Ws.6 to 14 are examined subsequent to securing the presence of this revision petitioner. No doubt, on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, it is clear that evidence has been recorded by the Trial Court. 26. I have already pointed out that the evidence which has been already recorded in the absence of this petitioner, first of all has not been placed on record in C.C.No.843/2009 in which the trial has been conducted against this revision petitioner. Apart from that, except reiterating the fact that the evidence of the witnesses which has already been recorded in C.C.No.482/2008 be adopted, nothing has been spoken by the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5. I have already pointed out that the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 which has been recorded in C.C.No.482/2008, first of all is not recorded in the presence of this revision petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that when this revision petitioner was produced, based on the body warrant, the other witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 have been examined. At that time, even the charges were not framed against this revision petitioner and also no opportunity was given to him at the time of recording the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5. 27. It is also pertinent to note that split up case was registered against this revision petitioner and accused No.4. Thereafter, instead of registering a separate case against accused Nos.3 and 4, body warrant was sought in the earlier proceedings itself as regards accused No.3 and he has been produced in the said case. Subsequently, after the rejection of his bail application, a separate case in C.C.No.843/2009 was numbered and thereafter, charges were framed and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 was adopted in the said proceedings. Hence, it is clear that there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the criminal revision petitioner that the mandatory provisions under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied by the Trial Court while recording the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5. 28. No doubt, I have already pointed out that in the presence of this revision petitioner, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have been examined. 28. No doubt, I have already pointed out that in the presence of this revision petitioner, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have been examined. But, the said witnesses have not spoken anything about the allegation made against this revision petitioner, except reiterating that the evidence which has been recorded in C.C.No.482/2008 be adopted and considered in C.C.No.843/2009 which is not a fair play and a fair trial. The very object of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. is that the accused should know the charges leveled against him and witnesses shall be examined in his presence, in the case on hand, the very procedure has not been followed and complied with. 29. I would like to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.200044/2014 connected with Crl.A.No.200054/2014 in the case of Yeshwant and Another –vs-The State through Madan Hipparga Police Station, wherein the Division Bench of this Court considering the similar grounds urged in the appeals has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in not recording the evidence in the presence of the accused. The relevant portion in paragraph No.12 of the judgment reads as follows: “12. Provision for splitting up the trial and holding trial only against the apprehended accused has a solitary purpose. If the absconding accused could be dealt with and punished based on the evidence and materials collected against the other accused, then the same could be achieved even without their presence while trying the other accused. The Judgment could also be passed against them and make them undergo the same once they are arrested. Such a procedure is not permissible. It will violate the fundamental principle of providing opportunity of hearing and fair trial. We are also of the view that the irregularity and illegality committed has resulted in failure of justice, as the omission to provide opportunity to the accused and record evidence in their presence goes to the root of the matter. Hence, we are of the view that the procedure followed by the court below is erroneous. The accused are not provided with any opportunity to defend themselves. Hence, we are of the view that the procedure followed by the court below is erroneous. The accused are not provided with any opportunity to defend themselves. There is violation of the mandate of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, we are persuaded to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and remit the matter back to the Sessions Court for fresh trial in accordance with law by following the mandatory requirement of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 30. I also would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram and Others -vs-State of Rajasthan reported in 2019 SCC On Line SC 523. The Apex Court in this judgment referring the several judgments of the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that it is mandatory on the part of the Trial Court to record the evidence in the presence of the accused or otherwise, it vitiates the proceedings. The Apex Court, in the said judgment while confirming the order of the High Court with regard to passing an order for retrial, made an observation in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 which reads as follows: “23. It is true that as consistently laid down by this Court, an order of retrial of a criminal case is not to be taken resort to easily and must be made in exceptional cases. For example, it was observed by this Court in Pandit Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, as under:- “15. An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in substance there had been no real trial or that the Prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge, and in the interest of justice the appellate Court deems it appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on his trial again. An order of retrial wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding, and exposes the person accused to another trial which affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial, and will not ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead either on account of insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or for other reasons. Harries, C.J., in Ramanlal Rathi v. The State, AIR (1951) CAL 305. “If at the end of a criminal prosecution the evidence leaves the Court in doubt as to the guilt of the accused the latter is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. A retrial may be ordered when the original trial has not been satisfactory for particular reasons, for example, if evidence had been wrongly rejected which should have been admitted, or admitted when it should have been rejected, or the Court had refused to hear certain witness who should have been heard. But retrial cannot be ordered on the ground that the prosecution did not produce the proper evidence and did not know how to prove their case.” 24. The order passed by the High Court in the present matter was not to enable the Prosecutor to rectify the defects or infirmities in the evidence or to enable him to lead evidence which he had not cared to lead on the earlier occasion. The evidence in the form of testimony of those twelve witnesses was led and those witnesses were cross-examined. There was no infirmity except the one that the evidence was not led in the presence of the appellants. The remedy proposed was only to rectify such infirmity, and not to enable the Prosecutor to rectify the defects in the evidence. 31. The Apex Court, taking note of the grounds urged, has come to the conclusion that looking to the glaring facts of the case on hand, we feel that, in order to do complete justice to the accused as well as to the victims, the entire case cannot be thrown out by holding the proceedings to be vitiated on account of the mistakes committed by the trial Judge or the Prison Authorities concerned. A fresh trial/de-novo has to be ordered by directing the Trial Court to lawfully re-record statements of the witnesses indicated above, whose evidence was recorded in the first round without ensuring the presence of the accused in the Court. 32. It is observed in paragraph No.25 of the judgment stated (supra) that, it is certainly in the societal interest that the guilty must be punished and at the same time, the procedural requirements which ensured fairness in trial must be adhered to. If there was an infraction, which otherwise does not vitiate the trial by itself, the attempt must be to remedy the situation to the extent possible, so that the interests of the accused as well as societal interest are adequately safeguarded. The very same witnesses were directed to be de-novo examined which would ensure that the interest of the prosecution is sub-served and at the same time, the accused will have every right and opportunity to watch the witnesses deposing against them, watch their demeanor and instruct their counsel properly, so that said witnesses can be effectively cross-examined. In the process, the interest of the accused would also stand protected. On the other hand, if we were to accept the submission that the proceedings stood vitiated, therefore, the High Court was powerless to order de-novo examination of the concerned witnesses, it would result in great miscarriage of justice. 33. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the recent judgment of the Apex Court and also considering the factual aspects of the case on hand, as already pointed out, the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been recorded in the absence of this revision petitioner and though the witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 were examined in his presence, no opportunity was given to him. Apart from the same, on the very same day, he was produced before the Court on the body warrant and subsequently, separate proceedings were initiated against him. In the said proceedings, learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated to adopt the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who were examined in C.C.No.482/2008 against this revision petitioner which is not a fair trial. Apart from the same, on the very same day, he was produced before the Court on the body warrant and subsequently, separate proceedings were initiated against him. In the said proceedings, learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated to adopt the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who were examined in C.C.No.482/2008 against this revision petitioner which is not a fair trial. Hence, it is appropriate to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and also the order of confirmation by the Appellate Court and an opportunity has to be given to the accused to participate in the trial. 34. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court, the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 to be examined de-novo which would ensure that the interest of the prosecution is subserved and at the same time, the accused will have every right and opportunity to watch the witnesses deposing against them, watch their demeanor and instruct their counsel properly, so that said witnesses can be effectively cross-examined. In the process, the interest of the accused would also stand protected. 35. I have already pointed out that the evidence which has been adduced in C.C.No.482/2008 is not a part of the records in which the revision petitioner was subjected for trial, except reiterated by the witnesses -P.Ws.1 to 5 that they have deposed in the earlier proceedings and the same may be considered. Hence, it is clear violation of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. The very object of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. has been defeated in the case on hand. Hence, I answer point No.1 as ‘affirmative’. Point No.(ii): 36. The main grounds of these two revision petitions, namely, Crl.R.P.Nos.2216/2011 and 2218/2011, are that the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against these revision petitioners. PWs.1 to 5 are the family members, relatives and panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that the complainant did not place any material for having drawn the huge amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the Bank though he deposed that he has withdrawn the money from the Bank. The other contention is that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is not consistent and both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the material on record. 37. The other contention is that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is not consistent and both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the material on record. 37. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State is that the accused persons were met by PWs.1 to 5 at the first instance when they have offered sample gold coins – 5 in number and subsequently the remaining gold coins were delivered to PWs.1 and 2 and received an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs. The witnesses, who have been examined before the Court have identified the accused persons since they met the accused persons twice and apart from that they were identified in Mangaluru Jail, when the accused were arrested in another case. Hence, their evidence cannot be discarded. 38. The very contention of the revision petitioners’ Counsel is that, there is no proper identification and also Identification Parade has not been conducted cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. The learned counsel also would contend that PWs.10 to 14 are the official witnesses and also the goldsmiths, who have acted as appraisers with regard to genuineness of the sample gold coins and other gold coins coated with gold on the brass coins and hence, both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court considered the same and rightly convicted and confirmed the revision petitioners. It is also contended by the Counsel that though accused No.1, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2216/2011 disputed that he is not Manjunath and he is Hospete Hemanth. The First Appellate Court had taken note of the records produced by the revision petitioner and also he himself has signed when the charge was framed as Manjunath @ Hosapet Hemanth and now he cannot contend that he is not Manjunath @ Hospete Hemanth and the said Manjunath is different person. 39. In keeping the contentions urged by both the revision petitioners’ Counsel and also the grounds urged in the appeal as well as in the oral arguments and on perusal of the material on record, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 14 to bring the accused for the charges leveled against the accused/revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. No doubt, these two revision petitions are filed against the conviction as well as the confirmation made by the Appellate Court. It is also important to note that this Court has to analyse the material on record within the scope and ambit of the revisional power envisaged under the Code and the scope is very limited and this Court cannot re-appreciate as Second Appellate Court. The revisional Court has to consider whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ignored the material on record and wrongly appreciated the evidence and if any Judgment of conviction and confirmation is against the record, this Court can exercise its power within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction to consider the material on record. 40. Having heard the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the oral arguments of respective counsel and also on perusal of records, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 14. The charge leveled against the accused is that they had represented that they found the gold coins while digging the house for Ashraya Yojana and they are in need of money and those gold coins are genuine. 41. It is the case of the prosecution that at the first instance, they gave 5 gold coins which are genuine and other gold coins to the tune of 2½ kgs are brass coins with gold coated and cheated the complainant by collecting an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs. It is important to note that, it is the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that these accused persons have called them over phone and thereafter fixed the place and delivered 5 coins, which are gold. PWs.1 to 5 went along with P.W.13 – goldsmith, who appraised the said coins are genuine. PW.13, also reiterated the same before the Court and when PWs.1 to 5 came to know about the other gold coins, which were delivered were not genuine gold coins and the same were appraised through P.W.12 and he also deposes that those coins are not gold, they were coated with gold on the brass coins. There is no dispute with regard to M.O.1 and M.O.2 are genuine gold coins and gold coated on the brass coins. 42. PW.10, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and secured the accused on body warrant and recorded a voluntary statement of accused No.1 and speaks about the same. There is no dispute with regard to M.O.1 and M.O.2 are genuine gold coins and gold coated on the brass coins. 42. PW.10, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and secured the accused on body warrant and recorded a voluntary statement of accused No.1 and speaks about the same. The main contention was that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is not consistent and the fact that these PWs.1 to 5 have met accused persons at the first instance and no doubt PWs.3 to 5 categorically says that at the time of second incident, they had not been with PWs.1 and 2 and that itself is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The contention that no Test Identification Parade was conducted cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and they have identified the accused persons at the first instance and merely because they have not joined along with PWs.1 and 2 at the second incident cannot be a ground to discard the evidence. P.W.1 also went and identified the accused in Mangaluru Jail. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and PWs.10 to 14 corroborates the case of the prosecution. Merely because panch witnesses have turned hostile cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution. No doubt, on perusal of the records, panch witnesses have turned hostile. But the witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court and identified the accused and also categorically say that they went and identified the accused in Mangaluru Jail. When such being the case, it cannot be contended that the identification is not in proper mode. 43. The other contention is that the complainant has not placed any material before the Court for drawing of huge amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the Bank. When such being the case, it cannot be contended that the identification is not in proper mode. 43. The other contention is that the complainant has not placed any material before the Court for drawing of huge amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the Bank. It is the clear evidence of the witnesses that the amount has been drawn from the Canara Bank and no doubt no document have been placed for having drawn the said amount and on perusal of the entire cross-examination of the witnesses nothing has been disputed that they were not having the money in the Bank and not drawn the same from the Bank and only suggestion was made that these witnesses have lost the money of Rs.10 Lakhs in some other transaction and deposing falsely before the Court and not denied specifically that they are not having the money and they were not delivered the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and when such being the case, the contention of the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. 44. The other contention of the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.2216/2011 is that he was examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3 to show that he was not Manjunath and he was called as Hospete Hemanth and identity is not proved. The said contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that when the said revision petitioner was secured and a separate charge was framed, he denied the charges leveled against him, but he has signed the charge as well as the plea form as Manjunath @ Hospete Hemanth. The said fact has been appreciated by the Appellate Court and rejected the claim of the Revision Petitioner. Hence, the revision petitioner again cannot contend that, Manjunath is different and Hospete Hemanth is different. No doubt, he has relied upon Exs.D1 to D3, but he categorically admitted that Exs.D1 and D2 are the genealogical tree and Caste Certificate were issued at the instance of the revision petitioner. No doubt, Ex.D3 -Transfer Certificate discloses the name as Hemanth, resident of Hospete. When he categorically makes the signature both in plea form and the charge as Manjunath @ Hospete Hemanth, he cannot blow hot and cold and contend that both the persons are different and identity has not been proved. No doubt, Ex.D3 -Transfer Certificate discloses the name as Hemanth, resident of Hospete. When he categorically makes the signature both in plea form and the charge as Manjunath @ Hospete Hemanth, he cannot blow hot and cold and contend that both the persons are different and identity has not been proved. The said contention also cannot be accepted and both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have applied their mind and appreciated the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC has been proved. 45. I have already pointed out the scope of revision is very limited. I do not find any material irregularity committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence available on record. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and official witnesses PWs.10 and 14 and the other circumstantial witnesses PWs.11 and 12 corroborates each other and hence, the very contention that there is no other circumstantial evidence against the revision petitioners also cannot be accepted. 46. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the material available on record, I am of the opinion that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and hence, I do not find any grounds to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petitions. 47. The other contention of the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.2218/2011 is that the Trial Courts have not taken note of Section 360 of Cr.P.C, for granting benefit in favour of the revision petitioners. 48. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment in the case of Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 245. 48. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment in the case of Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 245. No doubt, the Court can invoke Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to grant benefit under the said proviso and having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the accused persons have deceived and cheated the complainant by securing a huge amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and while exercising powers under Section 360, the Court has to take note of the facts and circumstances of each case and there is no reason for applying Section 360 and the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offences and also on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is nothing but a heinous offence and cheated the complainant and hence, it is not a fit case to invoke Section 360 to grant the benefit as contended by the revision petitioners and hence, the Judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the contention of the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. 49. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Crl.R.P. Nos. 2216/2011 and 2218/2011 are dismissed; (ii) Crl.R.P.No.2221/2011 is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and confirmation passed in C.C.No.843/2009 and Crl.A.No.59/2010 insofar as this revision petition is concerned is hereby set aside; (iii) The Trial Court is directed to re-record the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 afresh as observed in the Judgment and give an opportunity to the accused/revision petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and after recording the evidence, re-consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any observations made by this Court and dispose of the matter within six months from today, in accordance with law. (iv) The accused/Revision Petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 22.06.2020 without expecting any summons and assist the Court to dispose of the matter within the time stipulated (v) The Registry is directed to send the Trial Court and Appellate Court records forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 22.06.2020