- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38066 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 820 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHIVAPURATHRAPPA HOMBALA S/O LATE RAMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO.18289,2ND DEPOT, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27,NATIVE OF BOPALAPURA VILLAGE, REDDRA NAGANURU POST, RONA TALUK,GADA TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR U.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY UPPERPET TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER/PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, WHICH WAS DISMISSED AS BAR LIMITATION PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU BY CCH-59 IN CRL.A.NO.746/2017 ON DATED 02.07.2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38066 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.07.2018 passed by LVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.746/2017 dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 12 days and also the appeal as barred by limitation. 2. Petitioner is convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 119 read with Section 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Accused filed an appeal challenging the aforementioned conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. There was delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. An application was filed to condone the delay of 12 days and also for suspension of sentence. 4. The Appellate Court suspended the sentence pending consideration of application for condonation of delay of 12 days. Later, when the matter was listed for enquiry on the application for condonation of delay, appellant was not present. Hence, the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38066 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2019 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 12 days is wholly unsustainable. Assuming that the appellant was not present on that day, the Appellate Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the appellant to appear before the Court and to lead evidence explaining the delay, if at all, the evidence was required to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. 6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused is sentenced to imprisonment of for a period of six months and that being the position, delay of 12 days ought to have been condoned without insisting for any enquiry. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition on the premise that despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the petitioner/appellant, he has not turned up to explain the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal, as such, learned Sessions Judge had no option but to dismiss the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38066 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2019 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, the Court should not have posted the application for condonation of delay of 12 days for enquiry. Delay ought to have been condoned keeping in mind the principles governing provision relating to condonation of delay which mandate liberally approach while considering such applications more so, in the situation were the party is excising statutory right of appeal. 10. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment and was convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 119 read with Section 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 11. Under these facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach for condoning the delay and should have considered the appeal on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38066 CRL.RP No. 820 of 2019 12. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (ii) Impugned judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by the LVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the Appellate Court for consideration appeal on merits, in accordance with law on merits. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43