Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86064 (KAR)

SRI MUBARAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/111/2019 · 2025-12-18

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54164 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 111 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI MUBARAK, S/O HABEEB SAB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NADIDADA, GAURIBIDANUR - 561 208, CHICKBALLAPURA DIST …PETITIONER [BY SRI MOYEENULLA ABBASI, ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GAURIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION, GOWRIBIDANUR -561 208, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, REP BY SPL.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANITHA N. GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 r/w 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 26.12.2011, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD IN CRL.A.NO.4/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED U/S.354 AND 323 OF IPC AGAINST PETITIONER UPHOLDING AN C.C.NO.424/2007 ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE 26.12.2011 PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR U/S.354 OF IPC DATED 09.06.2014, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54164 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER It is seen that on previous occasion learned counsel for petitioner had sought time on ground that instructions were incomplete, which was found unjustified. However, time was granted. 2. Toady also learned counsel for petitioner absent. This would indicate that petitioner is not pursuing revision petition diligently. Hence, revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22