Mahesha vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 187 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 05 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1403 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Mahesha
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Basannanayaka,
R/at Abbur Village,
Hunsur Taluk,
Mysuru District-571105.
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Nataraj u, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By Sub-Insp ector of Excise,
Hunsur Sub-Division,
Hunsur,
Mysuru District,
Represented by
State Pub lic Prosecutor,
High Court Build ing,
Beng aluru-560001.
                                        ...Respondent

(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and ord er passed by the Learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur in C.C.No.595/2011 dated 31.12.2015 and the order p assed by the Learned VIII Ad ditional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, Sitting at Hunsur in Crl.A.No.58/2016 dated 03.08.2017 and remand the matter to the First :: 2 ::

app ellate court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, by allowing this revision p etition.

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for orders this d ay, the Court mad e the following:

ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2021

IA No.2/2021 is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1544

days in preferring this revision petition challenging

the order of the VIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur, dated

03.08.2017, dismissing the petitioner's criminal

appeal No.58/2016.

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the

wife of the petitioner, that the appellate Court

dismissed the petitioner's appeal for default and

that he came to know about the dismissal only

when the police went to his house to arrest him on

30.11.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the appellate Court ought not to have :: 3 ::

dismissed the appeal for default and it is in

violation of fundamental rights.

4. Normally, appeals shall not be dismissed.

But here is a case, where the petitioner was

represented in the appellate Court by his

Advocate. Though argument of the counsel that

appeal could not have been dismissed for default

is acceptable, the fact remains that the petitioner

has not shown any bonafides in not approaching

this Court since the date of dismissal on

03.08.2017. Absolutely no reasons are assigned

for the delay. When no reasons are assigned, his

application for condonation of delay cannot be

entertained. Hence IA No.2/2021 is dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition also dismissed.

IA No.1/2021 does not survive for

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kmv/-