- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48513-DB RP No. 395 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 395 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.1781/2023 BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED SHIYAB, S/O MOHAMMED SAJID, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT No.1-30, SHETTIYADKA HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR, NAVOOR, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574314, (CURRENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY), REP. BY HIS BROTHER, ABDUL RIYAZ S., S/O MOHAMMED SAJID, &PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HYDERABAD BRANCH, REP. BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48513-DB RP No. 395 of 2025 OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. ALSO AT, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU, No.3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560008. REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. &RESPONDENT THIS RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL No.102 OF 2024 AT ANNEXURE A. I.A. NO.1/2025 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT R/W SECTION 14 OF LIMITATION ACT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 286 DAYS IN FILING THE REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A. NO.1/2025 THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48513-DB RP No. 395 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER ON I.A. No.1/2025 (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. I.A. No.1/2025 is filed to condone the delay of 286 days in filing the review petition. 3. The delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the application. As such, I.A. No.1/2025 is allowed and the delay is condoned. ORDER ON PETITION The review petition seeks review of the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.102/2024, whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.12.2023 in Writ Petition No.1781/2023, dismissing the petition seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned Court/trial Court to sign or put its initial to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48513-DB RP No. 395 of 2025 each page of the case diary concerned registered by the respondent/National Investigating Agency, has been dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to the provisions of the Criminal Rules of Practice notified by the State of Karnataka in the year 1968 and the provisions of Section 172 Cr.PC to observe that the parameters for issuance of writ of mandamus prerequisites that there must be a corresponding duty where the writ of mandamus is to be addressed. A writ of mandamus would not lie for doing something, which is not contemplated in a statutory provision. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that the preamble of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 reflects that the rules of practice were made in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such would have statutory force and an appropriate direction ought to have been passed by the Court keeping in view the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48513-DB RP No. 395 of 2025 mandate of the Rules of Practice. It is his further submission that other States in the country mandate signatures of the Magistrate to be made on the case diary, which are produced for its consideration. 3. In our considered view, the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner in the instant case concerns a law that is well settled and explicitly laid down in the aforesaid judgment under review. There is no error apparent on the face of the record that would merit review of the impugned judgment. The review petition is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38