Dismissed¶7

Sri Shivakumar v. Sri H S Raghavendra

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026CRL.RP/559/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026; High Court of Karnataka; H.P. Sandesh, J.; criminal revision dismissed; delay of 127 days in filing; condonation refused; scope of revision very limited; Section 138 N.I. Act conviction; C.C.No.28753/2018 XVI ACMM Bengaluru City; Crl.A.No.935/2023 LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge; conviction confirmed; default sentence reduced from one year to six months; non-compliance with conditional suspension of sentence; petitioner undergoing sentence on conviction warrant; Rs. 4,50,000/- compensation; S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; S.438 r/w 442 BNSS; I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There being a delay of 127 days in filing the revision petition, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; no ground was found to consider the revision petition. ¶6

Sri Shivakumar Vs Sri H S Raghavendra — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 127 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2026). +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

There being a delay of 127 days in filing the revision petition, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise; no ground was found to consider the revision petition.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The scope of revision is very limited; this Court can exercise revisional powers only if the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the material on record.

¶6

Key takeaways

Having considered the factual aspects and the conduct of the revision petitioner, who did not comply with the conditional order of suspension of sentence passed by the Appellate Court, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and the revision petition stands dismissed.ratio¶7
As a consequence of the dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 stand dismissed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.) dismissed a criminal revision petition under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (also described as filed under S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) seeking to set aside the judgment dated 22.08.2025 in Crl.A.No.935/2023 (LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), whereby the petitioner's conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.28753/2018 (XVI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru City, judgment dated 28.04.2023, directing payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- with one year default imprisonment, reduced on appeal to six months) was confirmed. The revision petition was filed with a delay of 127 days while the petitioner was undergoing sentence on conviction warrant; I.A.No.1/2026 sought condonation of delay. The Court held that the scope of revision is very limited and revisional powers can be exercised only if the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the material on record; considering the delay and the petitioner's conduct in not complying with the conditional order of suspension of sentence, the revision petition and I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 were dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 559 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.819, EWS, B SECTOR, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI V., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. H.S. RAGHAVENDRA, SON OF H.S. SAJEEVA SHETTY, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, KHB, QUARTERS, 3^RD BLOCK, 1^ST AND 3^RD EAST JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.28753/2018 DATED 28.04.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY CRL.A.NO.935/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU DATED 22.08.2025 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on I.A.No.1/2026 for condoning the delay of 127 days in filing this revision petition.

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶23

that the petitioner is in jail and his mother is in a precarious health condition and hence, he may be released from the jail.

¶24

3. On perusal of records, it is noticed that the complaint was filed in the year 2018. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act directing him to pay an amount of ₹.4,50,000/-, in default, to undergo sentence for a period of one year. The same is challenged in the Crl.A.No.935/2023, in which, the judgment of conviction is

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

confirmed and sentence is modified, in case of default from one year to six months and inspite of it, he did not comply with the order of the Appellate Court and even chose to challenge the order of the Appellate Court. Though the order of the Appellate Court was passed on 22.08.2025, he is undergoing sentence based on the conviction warrant and there is a delay of 127 days and only after his arrest, when he was undergoing sentence, the present revision petition is filed.

¶28

4. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also taking note of the conduct of the revision petitioner that he did not comply with the order of Appellate Court, i.e., conditional order of suspension of sentence.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that voluntarily he is facing the sentence and already four and half months he has served the sentence and in view of modification of the order passed by the Appellate Court only sentence is for 6 months.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any

¶34

ground to consider this revision petition. Since there is a delay of 127 days in filing this revision petition, the question of entertaining this revision petition also does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and only if the trial Court and Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record, then only this Court can exercise the revisional powers.

¶35

7. Having considered the factual aspects and also the conduct of the revision petitioner, question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise and hence, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶36

Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 are dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶38

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Shivakumar v. Sri H S Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivakumar v. Sri H S Raghavendra

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

Mr Pradeep Kumar K S Vs Mr Mohan Kumar S

Sri M Dinesh Shanbhag Vs Sri M S Shivaramu

Smt. Shamala Shetty, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. H R Gowramma Vs Sri. H M Rudrakumar

Amogha Karunadu Poornaseva Souharda Credit Co. Operative Ltd., Vs M/S Woodtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Siddalingappa Vs Sri Revana Siddaiah