IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1280/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.PRAVEEN TIKARE, S/O NETHAJI R TIKARE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.363, I FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, JAGAJYOTHI NAGAR, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 056.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAJWAL K ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.KALYAN BASALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE D.C.I.B., CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. ICICI BANK LIMITED, CHITRADURGA BRANCH, VIJAY COMPLEX, B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. BY ITS CLUSTER BRANCH MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 239 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 IN C.C.NO.149/2014 AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State on I.A.No.2/2019.
2. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
3. I.A.No.2/2019 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to condone the delay of 183 days in preferring the present petition. It is also accompanied with the affidavit of the petitioner – accused.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused that petitioner – accused was working in ICICI Bank and subsequently, resigned the job and joined the Service of HDFC Bank on 20.09.2011. After the order passed in C.C.No.149/2014 dated 09.01.2019, he was working in Bengaluru and he could not able to go to Chitradurga due to his occupation and thereafter, he obtained opinion from his previous counsel and went in search of the counsel to prepare and file the instant petition. He engaged the present counsel and as per the instructions, he applied for the certified copy of the order dated 25.09.2019 and presented the instant petition. On these grounds, he prayed to condone the delay.
5. This application has been seriously contested by the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State by contending that there is no cogent and acceptable reasons to condone the delay and the one which has been shown is also not proper. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the records, the only contention which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing the order, as he was working at Bengaluru, he could not go to Chitradurga and obtain the certified copy. Later on, after obtaining the opinion from his counsel, the petitioner went in search of the counsel to file the instant petition. The petitioner as per the instructions of his counsel, he applied for certified copy and preferred the present revision petition.
8. It is well proposed proposition of law that the delay which has been caused to prefer the petition has to be properly explained with cogent and acceptable reasons. The petitioner accused is working in HDFC Bank and he contends that because of his occupation, he could not go to Chitradurga and get the opinion of the previous counsel, that itself goes to show that he is not diligent and has not taken any interest to file the case. The reasons assigned shows lethargic attitude of the petitioner - accused. The grounds mentioned is not cogent and acceptable to condone the delay.
9. I am conscious of the fact that at the threshold only on the ground of delay, the case should not be disposed of but however, when he being a educated and not diligently acted upon, he must have given proper and just reasons for day-to-days delay. Under such circumstances, there is no good grounds to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2019 is dismissed and subsequently, the petition is also dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj