Dismissed

Mahesha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1403/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an interim application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Criminal Revision Petition due to lack of bona fides and unassigned reasons. Consequently, the main Criminal Revision Petition was also dismissed as it could not survive.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the application for condonation of delay (IA No.2/2021), leading to the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition.

Mahesha Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1403 OF 2021

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Mahesha Aged about 36 years, S/o Basannanayaka, R/at Abbur Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District-571105.

¶6

…Petitioner (By Sri P.Nataraju, Advocate)

¶7

AND:

¶8

The State of Karnataka, By Sub-Inspector of Excise, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, Mysuru District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶9

…Respondent (By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

¶10

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur in C.C.No.595/2011 dated 31.12.2015 and the order passed by the Learned VIII Additional 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

¶11

:: 2 ::

¶12

appellate court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, by allowing this revision petition.

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2021

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶18

submits that the appellate Court ought not to have

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

dismissed the appeal for default and it is in violation of fundamental rights.

¶21

Normally, appeals shall not be dismissed.

¶22

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.

¶23

IA No.1/2021 does not survive for

¶24

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

Kmv/-

Mahesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandupalya Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Doddahanuma @ Hanuma Vs State of Karnataka

Ajah Francis Obasi Vs State of Karnataka

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Shabina Syed Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Geetha Vs Shanthamma