Dismissed¶40

Asgar Ali v. Manjunatha Gowda K v

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1728/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 319 days refused; each day's delay must be explained; certified copy obtained almost a year after appellate judgment unexplained; illness plea unsupported by treatment records; financial-shortage plea insufficient. CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025, Asgar Ali v. Manjunatha Gowda K V, High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), H.P. Sandesh J., order dated 17.07.2026; petition under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against concurrent conviction under S.138 N.I. Act (cheque dishonour): C.C.No.83/2016 trial judgment 20.10.2022 (Rs.7,55,000/-, default S.I. 3 months) confirmed by Crl.A.No.81/2022 dated 01.10.2024, Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kolar; I.A.No.1/2025 dismissed, revision petition consequently dismissed; pending I.As disposed.

What did the court decide?

The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory.

Asgar Ali Vs Manjunatha Gowda K v — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of a delay of 319 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be allowed. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The delay is not properly explained: the certified copy of the appellate judgment dated 01.10.2024 was obtained only on 22.08.2025, i.e., almost a year later, with no reasons assigned for that delay; the plea of ill health is unsupported by anything on record showing where the petitioner took treatment; and the petition was filed only on 14.11.2025. Since each day's delay has to be explained properly, no ground is made out to condone the delay of 319 days.

¶40

Key takeaways

I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay is dismissed and, consequently, the criminal revision petition is also dismissed; pending I.As, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025; Asgar Ali v. Manjunatha Gowda K V), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, single Judge (H.P. Sandesh, J.), oral order dated 17.07.2026, filed under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C to set aside Crl.A.No.81/2022 dated 01.10.2024 (Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kolar), which had confirmed the petitioner's conviction under S.138 N.I. Act in C.C.No.83/2016 (trial judgment dated 20.10.2022; sentence: pay Rs.7,55,000/-, in default simple imprisonment 3 months). DISMISSED at the stage of orders itself for non-condonation of a 319-day delay (I.A.No.1/2025): the appellate judgment was dated 01.10.2024 but the certified copy was obtained only on 22.08.2025 — nearly a year later, with no reasons assigned for that gap — and the petition was filed only on 14.11.2025; the pleas of ill health (nothing on record showing where treatment was taken) and shortage of financial assistance were held unsatisfactory, the Court stressing that 'each day delay has to be explained properly'. I.A.No.1/2025 dismissed; consequently the revision petition dismissed; remaining I.As disposed of as not surviving for consideration. No merits question under S.138 N.I. Act was reached.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:36653 CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010748722025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1728 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

ASGAR ALI S/O LATE KHADEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT CHAMPAKADAMA CHOLTRY MASJID ROAD, MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT 563 130

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MANJUNATHA GOWDA K V S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KAJIKALLAHALLI VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI & POST KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563133

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT IN CRL.A.NO.81/2022 DATED 01.10.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:36653 CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010748722025

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay of 319 days in filing this revision petition.

¶27

This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding wherein the Trial Court vide judgment dated 20.10.2022 in C.C.No.83/2016 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,55,000/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months vide order. The said judgment of conviction was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 01.10.2024 in Crl.A.No.81/2022.

¶28

In support of the delay, an application is filed and sworn to an affidavit stating that as soon as dismissal of the appeal, petitioner has applied for certified copy of the judgment

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:36653 CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025

¶31

¶32

CNR: KAHC010748722025

¶33

and thereafter he was not feeling well and suffering from inflammation and infection and he was not able to move out from the house on the advice of the doctor and certified copy was obtained on 22.08.2025 and also on shortage of the financial assistance, the petitioner could not file this revision petition within time. Hence, there is delay of 319 days in filing the petition.

¶34

On perusal of the records, it discloses that the Appellate Court passed the judgment on 01.10.2024 and certified copy was obtained on 22.08.2025 i.e., almost a year and this revision petition is filed on 14.11.2025 even after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on 22.08.2025. But delay is not properly explained except stating that he was not feeling well and nothing is placed on record to that effect showing that where he took the treatment. The other reason assigned is that he was having shortage of the financial assistance and could not file the revision petition in time.

¶35

Having taken note of the reasons assigned in the

¶36

application for condonation of delay, the same is not satisfactory. The petitioner has not stated in the affidavit that

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36653 CRL.RP No. 1728 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CNR: KAHC010748722025

¶40

he was not aware of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in the month of October 2024. The copy of the judgment was also obtained after almost a year and no reasons are assigned stating that why there was a delay of almost a year in obtaining the certified copy. Hence, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is not satisfactory since each day delay has to be explained properly. Hence, no ground is made out to condone the delay of 319 days in filing the petition. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the petition is also dismissed.

¶41

In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A. if any, does

¶42

not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶44

Asgar Ali v. Manjunatha Gowda K v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asgar Ali v. Manjunatha Gowda K v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Velayudhan Vs Sri M Lakkegowda

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs M Nagaraj

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri K L Chandrashekhar

M/S. Nandhini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri S. Chinna Swamy

Smt. Yeshodamma W/O Hanumanthappa Vs Mathihally Ningappa @ Pujari Ningappa

P Govindaraju Vs Sri Shiva Kumar M