Karnataka High Court
Sri V Sathyanarayana vs Kantipudi Narendra on 19 January, 2022
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200104/2021
BETWEEN:
Sri V. Sathyanarayana S/o Vidiyala Ramulu
Aged: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Laxmi Camp, Post: Roudakunda,
Tq. Sindhanur, Dist. Raichur-584101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
AND:
Kantipudi Narendra S/o Veerakali
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Laxmi Camp, Post: Roudakunda,
Tq. Sindhanur, Dist. Raichur-584101.
... Respondent
(By Sri Anant S. Jahagirdar, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the judgment and order dated 12.10.2021 passed by
the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, at Raichur in
Criminal Appeal No.34/2020 and order of conviction and
sentence dated 24.08.2020 passed by the learned II
2
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur in
C.C.No.357/2017, and acquit the revision petitioner/
accused.
This revision petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri Anant S.Jahagirdar, learned counsel for
respondent.
2. The present revision petition is filed against the
order passed by the learned District Judge in Criminal
Appeal No.34/2020 on the file of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur challenging the order dated
12.10.2021 whereby I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking for condonation of 84 days delay in
filing the appeal came to be rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under :-
Present revision petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.357/2017 who got convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act and ordered to pay fine of `2,60,000/- and out of
which `2,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation
to the complainant which was challenged in Criminal
Appeal No.34/2020 belatedly. Along with the appeal, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to
be filed seeking condonation of 84 days delay in filing the
appeal. The said application was accompanied by the
affidavit of the wife of the revision petitioner on the ground
that the revision petitioner was in judicial custody. Learned
Judge in the first Appellate Court in paragraph 15 of the
impugned order took note of the fact that the I.A.No.1 is
not accompanied by the sworn affidavit of the appellant,
dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and
consequently dismissed the appeal.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
revision petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil for the
revision petitioner vehemently contended that appeal is a
right of an accused and the same cannot be thrown out by
the court merely on technicalities. He also pointed out that
as on the date of filing the presenting the appeal,
accused/petitioner was in judicial custody and therefore
she could not file the affidavit of the appellant. In such
circumstances, under the Criminal Law, the kith and kin of
the accused can file an affidavit seeking condonation of
delay and the same is not properly appreciated by the
learned Judge in the first appellate court and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Anant S.Jahagirdar, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted to the court to pass
appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the
case. He also pointed that since the revision petitioner has
suffered an order of conviction under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act necessary direction be issued
for depositing of the part of the fine amount.
7. In reply, learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil,
submits that revision petitioner has already deposited 20%
of the fine amount before the first Appellate Court. In view
of the above factual aspects this court perused the
material on record. In paragraph 15 of the impugned
order, the learned Judge in the first Appellate Court has
noticed that I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act in Criminal Appeal No.34/2020 seeking condonation of
delay of 84 days in filing the appeal is not accompanied by
the affidavit of the appellant who is the revision petitioner
before this court. On perusal of the affidavit, in the trial
court records it is seen that in the first paragraph itself,
the wife of the petitioner has stated that her husband is in
judicial custody and therefore she has filed the affidavit in
support of the application seeking condonation of delay.
8. Further, it is noticed that the limitation to file
appeal against an order which was passed during the
COVID-19 pandemic, was extended by the general order
passed by the High Court. These aspects of the matter
ought to have been considered by the learned Judge in the
first Appellate Court. However, without considering the
same, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order
which needs interference by this court in the revisional
jurisdiction.
9. Hence, a case is made out for allowing the
revision petition by setting aside the order dated
12.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2020 and
remit the matter to the first Appellate Court for disposal in
accordance with law. Hence, the following order is
passed:-
ORDER
Revision petition is allowed.
The order dated 12.10.2021 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.34/2020 is hereby set-aside.
Interlocutory application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act filed in Crl.A.No.34/2020 is allowed.
Matter is remitted to first appellate court and the
first Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the matter in
accordance with law.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed
any opinion regarding merits of the matter.
It is further directed the parties to present before the
first Appellate Court on 07.02.2022, without any further
notice.
SD/-
JUDGE
sn
