IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.502/2019 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVARAMU FOR SRI MANJUNATHA PATTANA SHETTY, ADVOCATES) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HOLEHONNUR POLICE HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.9/2013 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI AND ORDER DATED 04.01.2013 IN C.C.NO.1938/2008 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/State on I.A.No.1/2019.
2. The said application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1289 days in preferring the present revision petition. It is also accompanied with the affidavit of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the accused has filed criminal appeal and thereafter, because of poverty and drought condition in the Shivamogga, he went to Chikkamagaluru but he was not aware of the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 30.06.2015. Subsequently he came to know about the disposal of the appeal and immediately he contacted the advocate and filed the present revision petition. The delay is not deliberate and the same is unintentional. On these grounds he prayed to allow the application and to condone the delay of 1289 days in preferring the criminal revision present petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused has ill-treated and harassed the first wife and married another woman and he used to harass her physically, mentally and treated her with cruelty and also assaulted her. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused has not explained the inordinate delay satisfactorily. In the affidavit, it is stated that there was draught condition due to poverty, he did not file appeal as he had been to Chikkamagaluru but he has not produced any material to substantiate his contention. The conduct of the petitioner/accused shows his dereliction and he is not diligent. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the application.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application as well as the affidavit.
6. On going through the said submissions, the only contention urged by the petitioner/accused is that there was a draught condition in Shivamogga and he went to Chikkamagaluru Coffee Estate area for doing the coolie work as there was a poverty due to drought condition. But as could be seen from the records, there is a delay of more than three years in preferring the present revision petition. In the area of Shivamogga, there will not be drought condition more than one year that too when the said area is covered with major rivers in the state. It is well proposed proposition of law that each day delay has to be explained with proper and cogent reason. In the instant case on hand, no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay and the conduct of the petitioner/accused shows that he is not diligent and has not shown any interest that too even after ill-treating and harassing the complainant by getting married to another woman with whom he was having illicit relation. All these factors if we take in to consideration, there are no justification for condoning the inordinate delay of 1289 days. In the light of discussions held by me above, I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed, consequently the Criminal Revision Petition is also dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2019 filed for suspension of sentence does not survive for consideration, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-