Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr. Yathindra B Vs Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Mr. Yathindra B Vs Sri. P. Bhaskar ReddyMr. Yathindra B v. Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy

Dismissed¶30

Mr. Yathindra B v. Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026CRL.RP/805/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation refused - CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026 (High Court of Karnataka, decided 17.06.2026, H.P. Sandesh J.): revision against confirmation of Section 138 NI Act conviction (C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020, fine Rs. 14,10,000/- with default sentence; confirmed in Crl.A.No.372/2020 dated 09.02.2023) filed with 1,100 days' delay; reasons (native-place jaundice treatment, loss of counsel's mobile number) held unsatisfactory; I.A.No.1/2026 rejected; revision petition dismissed. Keywords: Section 138 NI Act, cheque bounce, S.397 r/w 401 Cr.PC, S.438 r/w 442 BNSS, condonation of delay, I.A. rejected.

What did the court decide?

The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the condonation application - that the revision petitioner had gone to his native place for taking native treatment for jaundice and lost his counsel's mobile number, leaving him unable to contact his advocate for a period of 1,100 days - were considered and found not satisfactory.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1,100 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned.

Court's answer

The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the condonation application - that the revision petitioner had gone to his native place for taking native treatment for jaundice and lost his counsel's mobile number, leaving him unable to contact his advocate for a period of 1,100 days - were considered and found not satisfactory.

Ratio / Principle

Since the criminal proceeding was initiated in 2018 for bouncing of a cheque and eight years have already elapsed, the Court found no ground to condone the delay period and accordingly rejected I.A.No.1/2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision petition (CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh J.) filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.PC (also noted as filed under S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) challenging the order dated 09.02.2023 in Crl.A.No.372/2020 confirming conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020, wherein a fine of Rs.14,10,000/- with default sentence was imposed. The petition was filed with a delay of 1,100 days; the explanation offered - absence at native place for jaundice treatment and loss of the counsel's mobile number preventing contact with the advocate - was held unsatisfactory, particularly as eight years had elapsed since the 2018 cheque-bounce proceedings. I.A.No.1/2026 (condonation of delay) was rejected and, consequently, the revision petition stood dismissed.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 805 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

MR. YATHINDRA B S/O T. BANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO-B-3, CASA LAVELLE-4 12/5, LAVALLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SURESHA N,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. P BHASKAR REDDY S/O T VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 176, 3RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, N.G.E.F LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALURU-560 094.

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.372/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.4954/2018 DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XV A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU CITY.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on I.A.No.1/2026.

This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial Court in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020, convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.’ Act for short) directing to pay fine amount of Rs.14,10,000/(Rupees Fourteen lakhs ten thousand only) with default sentence and the same is confirmed in Crl.A.No.372/2020 and the said order was passed on 09.02.2023.

2. The present revision petition is filed with delay of 1,100 days and the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is that the revision petitioner had gone to his native place for taking native treatment for jaundice and lost the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026

HC-KAR

mobile number of his counsel. As such, he could not

contact him.

3. Having considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application that he had been to is native place and could not contact the advocate for a period of 1,100 days is not satisfactory. Further, the criminal proceeding was initiated in the year 2018 for bouncing of Cheque and already a period of eight years has elapsed. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to condone the delay period. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2026 is rejected and consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 1,100 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned.¶25
The court held
The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the condonation application - that the revision petitioner had gone to his native place for taking native treatment for jaundice and lost his counsel's mobile number, leaving him unable to contact his advocate for a period of 1,100 days - were considered and found not satisfactory.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Cr.PC397 R/W 401¶16
BNSS438 R/W 442¶16
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881138¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09.02.2023 in Crl.A.No.372/2020 confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020; this order is sought to be set aside by the present revision petition.¶16
LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU · 09.02.2023
Prior proceeding
Trial court conviction in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020 by the XV A.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru City: revision petitioner convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed to pay a fine with default sentence.¶24
Prior proceeding
First appeal: the conviction and sentence were confirmed in Crl.A.No.372/2020 by an order passed on 09.02.2023 (the order impugned in this revision petition).¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
MR. YATHINDRA B¶9
SURESHA N
respondent
SRI. P BHASKAR REDDY¶14

Coram

AI extract

H.P.SANDESHauthor¶21

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 17 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 14 May 2026
Case no.: CRL.RP/805/2026
CNR: KAHC010341662026
Topic: Cheque Dishonour
Bench: H.p.sandesh
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRL.RP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from H.p.sandesh

Siddalingappa Vs Sri Revana Siddaiah
16 Jun 2026
Sri Shivakumar Vs Sri H S Raghavendra
16 Jun 2026
Mr a P Sridhar Vs Shubha K S
16 Jun 2026
M/S Tiny World Technologies Vs M/S Orange Computers Services
17 Jun 2026
Ehaa Hospital Vs Dr. Vishukumar M J
17 Jun 2026
Sai Prasad Rao P Vs K Harish
17 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Mr. Yathindra B v. Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy, CRL.RP/805/2026 (KA), decided on 17 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Cr.PC397 R/W 401
BNSS438 R/W 442
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881138

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 09.02.2023 in Crl.A.No.372/2020 confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020; this order is sought to be set aside by the present revision petition.LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU · 09.02.2023
Trial court conviction in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020 by the XV A.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru City: revision petitioner convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed to pay a fine with default sentence.
First appeal: the conviction and sentence were confirmed in Crl.A.No.372/2020 by an order passed on 09.02.2023 (the order impugned in this revision petition).

View full history

Bench / Coram

H.P.SANDESH

Parties & counsel