Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.C. Krishnappa vs Sri. R. Rajanna on 8 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14401
CRL.RP No. 467 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 467 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.C. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI. CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.154,
BYRATHI VILLAGE
NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TWMPLE
KOTHANUR POST
BANGALORE-560077.
AND ALSO
SRI B.C.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT AMULYA FARM
Digitally signed by OPP. YAHBAN FARM
SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH KYALASANAHALLI
COURT OF KOTHANUR POST
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560077
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SRI B.C.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT SITE No.1-011
DEVA KRUPA NILAYA
5TH CROSS, SUN RISE
HERITAGE LAYOUT
KYALASANAHALLI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14401
CRL.RP No. 467 of 2024
NEAR BYRATHI
BANGALORE-560077.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R. RAJANNA
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKABOMMASANDRA,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560065
SINDE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SMT. KAMALA,
W/O LATE R. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
1(b) MR. JAGADISH R.,
S/O LATE R. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
1(c) SMT. PUSHPA R.,
D/O LATE RAJANNA R,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1(d) SMT. REKHA R.,
D/O LATE RAJANNA R,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.23,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
SOMESHWARANAGARA,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE-560065.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14401
CRL.RP No. 467 of 2024
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LXV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2358/2018 DATED 07.11.2019 AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND
FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII ADDL. CMM AT
BANGALORE VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 20.08.2018 IMPUGNED
ORDER IS PASSED IN C.C.NO.8223/2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.1/2024 and there is a delay of 792 days
in filing this revision petition.
2. Having perused the records, criminal appeal was
disposed of on 07.11.2019. In support of the application, an
affidavit is sworn to by the revision petitioner that he is an
heart patient and is also suffering from diabetic, blood pressure
and other ill-health and he was hospitalized for the treatment
and undergone heart surgery and during the process of his
treatment, his mother also undergone treatment for Asthma
and other diseases till September, 2018 and his mother expired
and also filed criminal case against the respondent and enquiry
is also conducted by the jurisdictional Police and FIR was
registered and till finalization of criminal case, no proceedings
NC: 2024:KHC:14401
shall be conducted and due to bonafide reasons, he was unable
to appear before the Trial Court and his counsel was
representing on his behalf and learned counsel assured that he
will take care of his case and due to bonafide reasons, he could
not appear before the Trial Court. That on 09.03.2014, Police
called him and informed about the warrant and dismissal of the
criminal appeal and immediately, he obtained copies and he
was shocked and surprised that the advocate office was closed
and came to know that advocate passed away on 30.10.2020.
Hence, there is a delay of 792 days.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the reasons assigned in the affidavit,
explanation is given for the delay from 2018 and this revision
petition is filed in 2024 and the petitioner even not cross-
examined the witness P.W.1 before the Trial Court and
thereafter, appeal is also filed in 2018 and appeal was disposed
of in the month of November, 2019 and nothing is stated in the
affidavit for having made any enquiry regarding the status of
the case from 2018 onwards and inspite of judgment was
passed in November, 2019, the present revision petition is filed
in 22.03.2024 and the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not
NC: 2024:KHC:14401
supported by any documents and the reasons assigned are also
not believable.
4. Hence, I do not find any ground to condone the
delay and the revision petitioner is not diligent throughout the
proceedings from 2016 and except appearance before the Trial
Court in C.C. case, for about eight years, he has not pursued
the matter. Therefore, no grounds are made out to condone
the delay.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently,
the petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
