- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13524 CRL.A No. 705 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.705 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI B R SIDDARAMU S/O R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDIGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 MOB - 9902012314 …APPELLANT (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI H M RAVI S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS (RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER) R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 IN C.C.NO.18126/2016 PASSED BY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13524 CRL.A No. 705 of 2025 THE HONBLE IX ASCJ SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. MACT AT BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2025 which is filed seeking special leave of this Court to prefer an appeal and I.A.No.2/2025 which is filed to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the appeal. 2. In support of delay application, the counsel for the appellant placed the medical documents on record wherein it discloses that MRI Whole Spine Screening was done on 15.05.2022 and the said document shows that the said MRI was done prior to the disposal of the case and the case was disposed of on 10.08.2022. The records disclose that immediately after disposal of the case i.e., on 10.08.2022, the appellant never visited the hospital and he went to the hospital only on 27.03.2023 that is for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13524 CRL.A No. 705 of 2025 department of radiology and there is no medical records to show that the appellant was admitted to the hospital except the documents to show that the appellant is under the routine medical check up and nothing on record to show that what prevented him to file the appeal in time and no satisfactory grounds are assigned to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the appeal. Hence, this is not a case for issuance of notice against the respondent on delay application also since the documents placed before the Court not suggests anything about what prevented him from filing of appeal in time and there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the same has not been explained properly. Under such circumstances, I.A.No.2/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as I.A.No.1/2025 are also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN