ORDER : (G. BASAVARAJA, J.) Revision Petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.923/2016 dated 29.11.2019 which is confirmed by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.271/2019 dated 11.10.2021. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against this revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the complainant that complainant company is a non-banking finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having a valid certificate of registration from the Reserve Bank of India, which permits complainant company to give loans to public against the pledge of gold ornaments. The complainant company has got more than 4000 branches all over the country including branch at Chikkamagaluru. The accused, on 01.12.2012 pledged gold ornaments weighing 51 grams and obtained loan of Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant's company. Thereafter on 16.07.2013, Santhebennur police came to the complainant's company with accused for recovery of gold ornaments pledged in the finance company and seized them from the complainant. At the time of pledging gold ornaments, this accused had stated that they belong to him. Later, it is learnt that it is a stolen property in Crime No.135/2012 of Santhebennur Police Station. The accused has pledged gold ornaments which was stolen, by misrepresentation and has received Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code . 4. On the basis of averments made in the complaint PCR No.9/2015 and the documents produced by the complainant, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and registered the case against this accused in C.C.No.923/2016 and summons was issued to him. (Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru has not passed any order as to the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code . (Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru has not passed any order as to the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code . However, the order sheet pertaining to C.C.No.923/2016 reveals that provisions of law is shown as Sections 417 , 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code .) by concerned case worker without the order of the Court. 5. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. Before framing of charge, learned Magistrate has recorded the evidence of PW.1. On the basis of his evidence, the Trial Court has held that there are sufficient material against this accused and accordingly charges are framed and the same was read over to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the case of complainant one Pandu, Assistant Manager of Muthoot Finance Company is examined as PW.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 was recorded, but the accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused himself adduced his evidence as DW.1 and no documentary evidence is produced by him. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and passed sentence only to the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code i.e. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.271/2019 and the same came to be dismissed on 11.10.2021. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the order passed by both Courts are perverse and devoid of merits and same is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the order passed by both Courts are perverse and devoid of merits and same is liable to be set aside. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the evidence on record while passing impugned order and the said impugned order is erroneous and bad in the eye of law. As per the complaint allegation, the petitioner pledged the theft gold ornaments with complainant company and received the amount, but both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the gold articles are theft by one Vasanth and Devaraj and charge sheet is laid against them in C.C.No.62/2014 and the petitioner herein is not the accused in the said case and he is only the witness in the charge sheet and his role is limited to the extent that he received the gold ornaments from the accused for valuable consideration and pledged the same before the complainant company and secure the loan. Further, the said articles have been seized by the police pursuant to the complaint. 10. It is submitted that from the above facts, the Trial Court can draw inference that the revision petitioner/accused has not committed the theft of gold ornaments and without knowing the said fact, he received the same and pledged the gold ornaments to the complainant's company. The complainant has filed suit against this revision petitioner/accused in OS.No.293/2013 and the same came to be decreed on 31.07.2019 by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, which itself indicates that the revision petitioner/accused paid the amount which was received from the company by pledging the gold ornaments. When such being the case, the question of cheating the complainant does not arise. After filing the civil suit, private complaint came to be filed by complainant invoking the alleged offences against this accused. Both Courts below without taking note of the pendency of the civil suit on the same cause of action, proceeded to take cognizance and convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code which is not permissible under law. The complainant has not examined any other witnesses except PW.1 who is an interested witness and an employee of the said Muthoot Finance Company. 11. Further, he would submit that the case registered against the accused namely Vasantha and Devaraj in C.C.No.62/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and Addl. The complainant has not examined any other witnesses except PW.1 who is an interested witness and an employee of the said Muthoot Finance Company. 11. Further, he would submit that the case registered against the accused namely Vasantha and Devaraj in C.C.No.62/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere ended with acquittal vide judgment dated 17.03.2021 and a copy of the same is produced. The accused has not cheated the complainant and he has not dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or to make alter, or destroy a valuable security or anything capable of being converted into a valuable security as required under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code . 12. Lastly, the learned counsel would submit that absolutely there are no material evidence on record against this revision petitioner/accused for the commission of offences under Section 417 , 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and without considering these aspects, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for alleged offences, which is not sustainable under law. Even the Appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence on record. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 13. Despite service of notice to respondent, remained absent and unrepresented. 14. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and on perusal of the material placed before me, the following points would arise for my consideration. i. Whether the revision petitioner/accused have made out grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is illegal, perverse and not sustainable under law? ii. What order? 15. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in affirmative Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding point No.1: 16. I have carefully examined the material placed before me. On the basis of private complaint dated 12.03.2015 filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by Muthoot Finance Company represented by its Assistant Manager-in charge Mr. Pandu, the Trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of PW.1/complainant Pandu and registered the case against the accused for the commission of offences under Section 417 , 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code . 17. Pandu, the Trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of PW.1/complainant Pandu and registered the case against the accused for the commission of offences under Section 417 , 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code . 17. Ex.P11 the charge sheet submitted by the Tarikere Police, Tarikere Circle, reveals that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Rudramma, W/o. Thippeshappa, Bukkambudi Village, Tarikere Taluk, Tarikere police have registered the case in crime No.135/2012 and after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused No.1-Vasantha and accused No.2-Devaraj for the commission of offence under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code . In the said charge sheet, the investigation officer has cited 19 witnesses as CWs.1 to 19 in which the present revision petitioner Kariyappa is shown as CW.13. Further, it is alleged that on 18.10.2012 at 2.00 p.m., on Bukkambudi-Masanakere Road, near Bukkambudi-Kerekodi within the jurisdiction of Ajjampura Police Station, the accused Nos.1 and 2 came on a stolen Herohonda Motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MBLHA10EJ8GC01741 and No.HA10EA8GC01774 and by splattering chilli powder into the eyes of CW.1, snatched 51 gms of gold chain and sold the same to CW.13 - Kariyappa i.e. the present revision petitioner as they badly in need of money and received Rs.75,000/- from CW.13 thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code . 18. The investigating officer has not submitted the charge sheet against the present revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code . If really the present revision petitioner has dishonestly received or retained the stolen property either knowingly or having no reason to believe, the same shall be deemed as stolen property. But the investigating officer has not made any such accusation against this accused. The complainant Pandu is also shown as CW.14 in the charge sheet stating that CW.13 - Kariyappa has pledged the stolen gold ornaments to the Muthoot Finance and obtained loan. 19. Further, CW.14 Pandu who is the complainant in the instant case has not taken any steps with regard to release of property which were seized by the police. This witness is also examined before the Court below as PW.9 which reflects in the judgment pertaining to C.C.No.62/2014. 19. Further, CW.14 Pandu who is the complainant in the instant case has not taken any steps with regard to release of property which were seized by the police. This witness is also examined before the Court below as PW.9 which reflects in the judgment pertaining to C.C.No.62/2014. Though PW.10 has got knowledge as to the charge sheet submitted against the present revision petitioner in C.C.No.62/2014, the complainant has not taken any legal steps to implead the present revision petitioner as accused in that case for commission of offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code . After lapse of about 3 years i.e. from the date of offence of robbery pertaining to C.C.No.62/2014, the complainant has presented this private complaint before the learned Magistrate. The complainant/PW.1 has not explained the delay in filing this complaint and has not whispered anything as to non-taking of steps in C.C.No.62/2014 and also not taken steps with regard to release of stolen gold ornaments which is said to have been seized from the possession of the complainant. 20. When the complainant has failed to place the material to prove that the accused, knowing fully, that the article is received as the stolen property and pledged the same to complainant company i.e. Muthoot Finance Company and received the amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, the question of committing the offence under Section 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code does not arise. 21. Admittedly, the complainant has filed suit against the present revision petitioner for recovery of amount and the same is decreed by the Court in O.S.No.293/2013. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and also ignored the provisions of Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and even though there are no essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code , the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the accused and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, warrants interference by this Court as the said judgment suffers from legal infirmities. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.923/2016 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.271/2019 by the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, are set aside. iii. Revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 417 ,418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code . iv. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. v. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the respondent through registered post.