- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53714 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 259 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SANTHOSH VINOD RODRIGUES S/O RAFAEL RODRIGUES AGED 52 YEARS R/AT MIRANDA HOUSE, BEHIND BEJAL CHURCH, MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT- 575004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KHOT ARJUN RAMA, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. LAVINA D'SOUZA W/O LYNAL MIRANDA AGE 46 YEARS, R/AT MANALASA COMPOUND, AKASH BHAVANA, KAVOOR POST MANGALORE- 575 015 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR M G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 24.08.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.10/2020 BY HONBLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANGALORE., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53714 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER I.A.no.1/2024 is filed for condonation of 543 days' delay in filing Revision Petition. 2. In affidavit filed in support of application, it is stated that impugned judgment was passed on 24.08.2022. It was stated that in January 2021, petitioner was diagnoised with heart ailment and underwent treatment. Treatment records are appended to affidavit. It is also stated that petitioner had appended a printout copy of electro cardiogram. 3. It is stated that due to said ailment, petitioner was advised not to travel and was advised fit to travel only in February 2024. Whereafter, she traveled from Mangalore to Bangalore and got filed present Revision Petition. Therefore, reason for delay is duly explained and reason assigned is genuine. 4. Learned counsel for respondent opposes application. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused affidavit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53714 CRL.RP No. 259 of 2024 6. It is settled law that while considering application for condonation of delay, it is not quantum of delay, but reason has to be examined, if it was beyond control of applicant. 7. In instant case, though petitioner claims to have been treated for heart ailment, same is during January, 2021. While she was prosecuting matter before Trial Court and Appellate Court, admittedly judgment passed by Appellate Court was in August 2022. Treatment taken by petitioner for heart ailment was long concluded. Merely stating that electro cardiogram was appended would not be sufficient. There is no certificate appended to state that petitioner was prevented by medical advise, not to travel. In absence of same, there will be no explanation for condonation of delay of 543 days. Hence, I.A.no.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, Revision Petition also stands dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of Revision Petition, I.A.no.2/2024 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19