Karnataka High Court
Smt Preethi P V vs Sri C Prakash on 25 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.233/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREETHI P.V.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O P. VENUGOPAL,
R/AT NO.268, 2ND CROSS,
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560 008. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI C. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE C. KEMPEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.63, 2ND FLOOR,
MOTTAPPAN PALYA,
INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560038. ... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-58) IN CRL.A.NO.25065/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.05.2015 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL. C.M.M., MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26208/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-58) IN CRL.A.NO.25065/2015 AND JUDGMENT DATED
12.05.2015 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL,
2
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26208/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on
I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay of 1440 days in filing the
petition. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to
by the petitioner stating that the appeal was disposed of on
20.11.2017 and the counsel did not inform the same to her. She
was in custody in respect of C.C.No.26209/2013 from
15.11.2021 to 14.01.2022 and inspite of sentence period was
over, she was not released and was illegally detained and hence
WP(HC) No.2/2022 was filed by her daughter and thereafter she
was released. The learned counsel submits that after obtaining
the certified copy, recently the papers were handed over to him
to file this revision petition. The Apex Court has extended the
limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 and hence
there is a delay in preferring the petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also taking note of the material on record, there is
concurrent finding by both the Courts. Apart from that, the
appeal was disposed of in November 2017 itself and Covid-19
period started from March 2020 and in between 2017 to 2020,
there is no any reasoning given by the petitioner. The only
reason given by the petitioner is that the learned counsel, who
contested the matter in the appeal had not informed her about
the disposal of the appeal and the same cannot be a ground to
condone the delay of 1440 days in filing the petition and the
petitioner ought to have been vigilant in conducting the appeal
and pursuing the matter and the same is not done. The reasons
mentioned in the affidavit are also not satisfactory even to issue
notice against the respondent and to condone the delay of 1440
days in filing the petition no sufficient reasons are assigned.
When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the
discretion and to issue notice against the respondent. Hence
I.A.No.1/2022 is dismissed and consequently the revision
petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
