Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mohan C vs Smt. Manjula @ Manjamma on 9 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN C
S/O G CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.100
CHIKKABANAHALLI VILLAGE
KANNAMANGALA POST
KADUGODI VIA
BENGALURU-560047
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEENARADHYA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA
D/O SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT CHANNARYASWAMY KRUPA NILAYA
SIDDARTHA EXTENSION
1ST CROSS, KADUGODI POST
BENGALURU-560067.
NOW R/AT SMT. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA
D/O SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO. SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
KANNAMANGALA POST, KADUGODI VIA
BENGALURU-560067
... RESPONDENT
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET SIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 IN
CRL.A.NO.14/2017 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
PARTLY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE ACJM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2490/2009 DATED
06.01.2017 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on
I.A.No.2/2022 for condonation of delay of 1113 days in filing the
revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I.Act and the same was challenged in the
appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed confirming the
judgment of the Trial Court. The judgment of the Appellate Court
was passed on 19.09.2018 and the present revision petition is
filed after the lapse of 1113 days and the reasons assigned in
the said application is that the petitioner was suffering from back
pain called spine L4 and L5 during the proceedings of the
criminal appeal. The counsel in support of his arguments relied
upon the documents of NutriAspire Healthcare dated 28.03.2019
wherein it is stated that the petitioner is suffering from back pain
called spine L4 and L5 from two years, Thyroid from three years
and having too much cholesterol and human toxin and except
the said document there is no other document to show that the
petitioner was unwell during the period of disposal of the appeal
or subsequently or immediately to the said order. The counsel
relied upon the document of the year 2020 and there is a delay
of 1113 days in filing the revision petition and the same is also
not supported by any material. The Trial Court passed an order
of conviction of the petitioner and the Appellate Court confirmed
the said order and there is a concurrent finding. When such
being the factual aspects of the case, when the appeal was
dismissed on 19.09.2018, for a period of almost three years four
months, no revision is filed and now, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing a condonation of delay
application stating that he is suffering from spine L4 and L5 and
also in the affidavit at paragraph 4 stated that during medication
on 22.09.2019, the petitioner suffered with typical chest pan,
immediately he had taken first aid treatment in Sreenivasa
Nursing Home, Hoskote and based on the advise of the doctor
cardiology test and related things shifted and got admitted to
Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research. But this
document is also after one year of the dismissal of the appeal.
When such being the factual aspects, it is not a fit case even to
issue notice against the respondent since there is a delay of
1113 days in filing the revision petition when the petitioner is
suffering from concurrent findings for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In view of the discussions made
above, I.A.No.2/2022 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed.
3. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1169
wherein it is held that while exercising the revision, suo motu
exercising of power that is order of discharge passed by the Trial
Court found illegal, revision against barred by limitation, High
Court must have exercised suo motu power. The factual aspects
of the case is different from the case on hand. Here is a case of
disposal of the matter on merits and the Trial Court convicted
the revision petitioner and same is affirmed by the Appellate
Court. It is not in dispute, but the Apex Court set aside the Trial
Court order only on the ground that discharge order passed by
the Trial Court found illegal and hence, the said fact is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
4. In view of the dismissal of the application for
condonation of delay, the revision petition does not survive for
consideration and hence, the revision petition is also dismissed.
5. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, IA, if
any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
