Dismissed¶¶36

Mr. Kunhi Moosa., v. Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026CRL.RP/819/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC criminal revision dismissed: petitioner defaulted on joint memo payment due December 2025 and on conditional-order deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- (order dated 21.05.2026 staying the order of sentence); extension of time refused; no further interim-protection on non-compliance with conditional order; challenge to First Appellate Court confirmation of judgment of XXXIII ACJM in CC.No.57284/2023 (appeal CRL.A.No.25095/2026, LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CH-74, Mayo Hall Unit); provisions invoked: S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.; U/S 438 r/w 442 BNSS. Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh. NC: 2026:KHC:26843.

What did the court decide?

The conditional order passed on 21.05.2026 had expressly made it clear that no further interim-protection would be given if its conditions were not complied with. ¶¶30

Mr. Kunhi Moosa., Vs Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition against the First Appellate Court's confirmation order should be entertained, in view of the petitioner's non-compliance with the conditional order of 21.05.2026. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

No ground was made out to entertain the revision petition, which was directed against the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court; no grounds were made either for extension or for continuing the proceedings in view of the conditional order, and the revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The conditional order passed on 21.05.2026 had expressly made it clear that no further interim-protection would be given if its conditions were not complied with.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

As the conditions of the conditional order were not complied with, the question of considering the petitioner's application for extension of time does not arise.ratio¶¶30
Despite the Court showing leniency in permitting deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-, the petitioner failed to deposit it; the terms of the joint memo and the conditional order were not complied with.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.RP No. 819 of 2026 (High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh J.), decided 05.06.2026: Criminal revision petition under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. (r/w Ss.438 and 442 BNSS) against the judgment dated 13.05.2026 in CRL.A.No.25095/2026 of the LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CH-74), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, described as the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court on the judgment dated 07.11.2025 in CC.No.57284/2023 of the XXXIII ACJM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. The petitioner had filed a joint memo agreeing to pay the amount in December 2025 but did not comply with its terms. On 21.05.2026 the Court conditionally stayed the order of sentence subject to deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- within two weeks, with counsel to indicate time for payment of the remaining agreed amount under an affidavit of undertaking. The petitioner did not comply. His application for extension of time to honour the joint memo within six months was held incapable of consideration, as non-compliance with the conditional order disentitled him to further interim-protection; no ground was made out to entertain the revision petition. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26843 CRL.RP No. 819 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.819 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. KUNHI MOOSA SON OF MR. KUNHI MAMMU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS THE PARTNER M/S. SAVOURY INTERNATIONAL HOTEL NO.50/7, 3RD FLOOR, 39TH CROSS 16TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. AZHAR MEER, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. SYED ASAD AHMED Digitally signed SON OF MR. SYED AHMED by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Location: HIGH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1102 COURT OF PRESTIGE CLARKE WOODS APARTMENT KARNATAKA NO.11, CLARKE ROAD RICHARDS TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 13.05.2026 IN CRL.A.NO.25095/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXIII

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26843 CRL.RP No. 819 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CH-74) MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND SUITABLY MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 07.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIII ACJM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.57284/2023 BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO HONOUR THE TERMS OF THE JOINT MEMO WITHIN A PERIOD OF 06 MONTHS.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This matter was listed on 21.05.2026 and conditional order was passed staying the order of sentence directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the said order and this Court also recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that remaining agreed amount as per the joint memo would be deposited in further time that is to be granted by this Court during the pendency of this petition. Further, this Court also made it clear in the order itself that counsel for the petitioner shall also indicate the required time for payment of the remaining amount and to that extent, the affidavit of undertaking shall be filed. Further observation is also made that, needless to observe that on assurance of deposit, this order is made. If

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:26843 CRL.RP No. 819 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

these conditions are not complied within the time, the petitioner shall not be entitled to further interim-protection by this Court. In spite of it, the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record, a joint memo was filed before the Court agreeing to pay the amount in the month of December, 2025 and the terms of the said joint memo was also not complied with and this Court has shown lenience in permitting the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,00,000/and the petitioner has failed to deposit the same and the conditional order was not complied with.

¶30

Now, the petitioner has come up with an application for extension of time before this Court and in view of the conditional order passed by this Court making it clear that no further interim-protection will be given if the conditions of the conditional order is not complied with, question of considering the application for extension of time does not arise.

¶31

Having considered the material available on record, no ground is made out to consider this revision petition and this

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:26843 CRL.RP No. 819 of 2026

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

revision petition is also against the confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition, as no grounds is made either for extension or to continue the proceedings in view of conditional order.

¶36

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Mr. Kunhi Moosa., v. Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kunhi Moosa., v. Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed

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

Mohammed Khalid Vs the State by the Station House Officer

Arvind Singhal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T S Basavaraju Vs Smt H G Savitha

Sri Ganesha D Vs Sri Ramachandra a Shet

H S Jayakumar Vs M R Chandru

Mr Keshav Das Vs Mr Kumbala Padhbhanabha