The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1452 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PUTTASIDDAIAH S/O LATE CHAKRAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. MALLAMMA W/O LATE CHAKRAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 3. KUMAR S/O LATE CHAKRAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. RAJU @ RAJANNA S/O LATE CHAKRAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT DASANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPURA P.S MYSORE (REP BY SPP) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 REP BY SPP. BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. S.J., MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.107/2013 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED BY THE JMFC (II COURT), MYSORE IN C.C.NO.70/2010 AND BE PLEASED TO PASS THE ORDER OF RESTORING THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.1/2013 in a Criminal Appeal No.107/2013 dated 19.09.2016 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the revision petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') accompanied to the appeal and accordingly, ordered that the appeal is dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, PW.1- Lakshmamma i.e., complainant lodged a complaint before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 respondent Police against the revision petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC. On the strength of the said complaint, respondent Police registered a case in Crime.No.36/2009 against the revision petitioners/accused. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the revision petitioners/accused for the aforementioned offences before the Trial Court i.e., J.M.F.C (II Court), Mysore in C.C.No.70/2010. After a detailed trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused/revision petitioners for the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 31.10.2011 in C.C.No.70/2010 as under: "ORDER The accused No.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s.323 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C., and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo S.l. for a period of one month. The accused No.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C., and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo S.I. for a period of six months. Acting U/S.357 (1) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be given - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 to the victim, who is the complainant by way of compensation. Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. the period undergone by the accused No.1 to 4 if any in Judicial Custody is hereby given set off. The above sentences shall run concurrently." 3. Against the said conviction judgment, the revision petitioners/accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., before the First Appellate Court. While filing the said appeal, there was a delay of 1 year 4 months. To condone the said delay, the revision petitioners/accused filed I.A.No.1/2013 in Criminal Appeal.No.107/2013. The First Appellate Court, upon hearing I.A.No.1/2013 i.e., the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the said application and ordered that the appeal is also dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by the revision petitioners/accused. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri. M. Sharass Chandra for the revision petitioners and learned HCGP Sri. Channappa Erappa, for the respondent-State. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused is that the First Appellate Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 grossly erred while dismissing the delay application i.e., I.A.No.1/2013 for the reason that the revision petitioners being the accused No.1 to 4 in C.C.No.70/2010, was oblivious of the judgment passed in the said case by the learned Magistrate. He further contended that, the revision petitioners/accused are having a good case on merits since the Trial Court convicted them without examining the evidence on record in right perspective. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 19.09.2016 in Crl.A.No.107/2013 passed by the First Appellate Court. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent- State submitted that the First Appellate Court, on comprehensively examining the materials on record, passed a well-reasoned order by rejecting I.A.No.1/2013, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contended that, the reasons enumerated by the revision petitioners in the application for condonation of the delay were not sustainable either on law or on facts. As such the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the same. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 7. The First Appellate Court while dismissing the delay application i.e., I.A.No.1/2013 in Crl.A.No.107/2013 assigned the reasons, which reads as under: "9. Admittedly, the Trial Court has passed Judgment of conviction on 31.10.2011. There is a delay of one year four months in preferring this Appeal. The specific assertion made by the Appellants is that, though the Judgment of conviction is passed, but they were not aware about the nature and consequences of the said Judgment till 13.3.2013. When he received witness summons in another counter case in CC 66/2010, he approached the learned APP in that case. While discussion, he came to know about the nature and consequences of the impugned Judgment. Then, immediately they have taken the certified copy of the Judgment and then, they have preferred this Appeal. During the course of his enquiry, he has also re-iterated the same facts as stated in his affidavit filed along with his application. 10. But, on perusal of order-sheet and also impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court, it is very clear that on the date of pronouncing the Judgment i.e., on 31.10.2011, all these Appellants i.e., accused No.1 to 4 along with their counsel were present. Since it was a conviction Judgment, the same was the presence of accused pronounced themselves. After pronouncing the Conviction Judgment, learned Trial Judge heard accused No.1 to 4, and their learned counsel and learned APP, who were present before the Trial Court. Only after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge passed the order regarding sentence. the in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 11. Moreover, during the course of cross- examination, this PW 1 has also admitted that, at the time of pronouncing the impugned Judgment, he himself along with other their Appellants were present along with counsel. Even after passing sentence, the learned counsel for accused/these Appellants have filed an application under Section 389[3] of Cr.P.C. The said application came to be allowed and sentence was also suspended for one month by taking personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety for likesum. After passing the said order, these accused No.1 to 4 along with their surety were present and executed the bond also. On subsequent date i.e., on 3.11.2011, these accused have also paid fine amount imposed by the Trial Court under this impugned Judgment. the Inspite of 12. More particularly, on the date of pronouncing Judgment of impugned conviction and sentence, free copy of the impugned Judgment was supplied. There is an endorsement in the order-sheet as the learned counsel for accused has accepted this copy of Judgment. these proceedings conducted in their presence, now contrary to these judicial records, these Appellants have stated that they are not aware about the nature and consequences of the Judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge. They were represented through the learned counsel. When such being the case, the Appellants in this application as they are not aware about the nature and consequences of the Judgment, is nothing but a baseless ground. After passing said Judgment of conviction nearly about one year 4 months, these accused kept quiet. Hence, there is an inordinate delay and latches on the part of these Appellants. The is this reason unbelievable and not probable. reasons assigned by application assigned the in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 and impugned 13. It is well settled principle of law that the ignorance of law is not excuse. Moreover, though the Appellants may be illiterate persons, but they cannot go back judicial records i.e., Judgment. order-sheet Admittedly, they had engaged their own counsel and conducted the entire proceedings in that case. When such being the case, it is the duty of the parties to get proper information from stage to stage from their counsel. Therefore, the Appellants have not made out any sufficient cause to condone the delay in preferring this Appeal. Hence, the application filed by the Appellants lacks merit and the same is deserves to be dismissed." 8. On careful perusal of the above reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court, it could be gathered that the revision petitioners had the knowledge of conviction order passed by the learned trial Court since they were very much present on the date of judgment and they themselves filed an application under section 389(3) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence. In such circumstances, the reasons assigned by the revision petitioners in the application filed before the First Appellate Court is far from truth. Hence, the inordinate delay of one year four months has not been duly explained by the revision petitioners/accused. As such, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.1/2013 and ordered that the appeal is also dismissed. I find no good grounds to interference - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14321 CRL.RP No. 1452 of 2016 in the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court. Against this backdrop, the revision petition lacks merits and the same is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30