- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.972 OF 2019 BETWEEN: T A MANHORANJAN S/O LATE APPUKUTTAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TIMBER MERCHANT, R/AT NEAR DFO BANGALOW, CONVENT ROAD, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.O.SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.JAYALAKSHMI.K.B, ADVOCATE) AND: B M KARIAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. B.K. JANAKI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O LATE B.M.KARIAPPA EDEN GARDEN, SIDDAPURA ROAD GUDDE HOSUR, KUSHALNAGARA SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU. (AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER THE COURT PERMISSION DATED: 03.02.2023 …RESPONDENT (V/O DTD: 13.02.2024 SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSD IN C.C.NO.568/2014 DATED - 2 - 10.04.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADIKERI AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER CONFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.41/2015, DATED 09.07.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.06.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI C.A.V ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by accused under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.41/2015, by dismissing the appeal filed by him. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Vide order dated 09.09.2019, the sentence is suspended with a direction to the accused to execute personal bond and also deposit 50% of the fine amount, - 3 - including the deposit if any, already made within a period of four weeks. 4. When notice was sent to respondent/complainant, it was returned with endorsement that respondent/complainant has died. His death certificate is also produced. Thereafter, several adjournments were granted to enable accused to bring the LRs of complainant on record and to proceed with the matter. However, accused has failed to file necessary application. In fact on 29.06.2021, this petition came to be dismissed for default for not taking steps. 5. However, accused filed I.A.No.1/2023 to recall the said order by condoning delay of 553 days in filing the recall application. It was allowed on 03.02.2023 and the petition was restored. The submission made on that day reveal that complainant has died even before Crl.A.No.41/2015 was filed and he was sued through his LR i.e., wife B.K.Janaki. However strangely accused filed this petition against complainant who was no more i.e., - 4 - against a dead person. In the light of the said submission, accused was permitted to amend the cause title. Accordingly, the cause title of the present petition was amended inserting the name of wife of the complainant as his LR. 6. Unfortunately, when notice was sent to LR of the complainant, it was also returned with endorsement that the wife of complainant is also no more. Thereafter, the learned counsel for accused was directed to bring any other LR of complainant on record. Even though several adjournments were granted, no steps are taken to bring any other LRs of complainant on record. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has filed I.A.No.1/2024 under Section 319 Cr.P.C, to direct the jurisdictional police to ascertain the LRs of complainant and I.A.No.2/2024 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to implead the State as respondent No.2 to enable the Court to decide the petition on merits. - 5 - 8. In support of these applications, learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Subbanna Hegde and Ors. Vs. Dyavappa Gowda (Subbanna Hegde)1. (ii) Kushal Kumar Talukdar Vs. Chandra Prasad Goenka (Kushal Kumar Talukdar)2 9. Heard arguments and perused the record. 10. Thus, in this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, accused has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. On the death of the complainant and his wife, instead of bringing any other LRs of complainant or his wife on record, accused has come up with I.A.No.1/2024 and I.A.No.2/2024. 11. As already noted I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. This Section deals with the power of the Court to proceed to any other persons appearing to be guilty of the offence which is being tried before the trial 1 Crl.P.No.204/1979 Dt: 03.03.1980 2 2005 Crl.L.J 599 - 6 - Court. This provision has nothing to do with bringing the LRs of complainant on record. 12. So far as I.A.No.2/2024 is concerned, it is filed to implead the State as respondent to enable the accused to prosecute the petition filed by him. Admittedly, the offence for which accused was prosecuted is punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, which is a private offence between complainant and accused and the State has nothing to do with it and as such it does not appeal to reason to implead the State and compel it to resist the petition. 13. So far as the decision in Subbanna Hegde, is concerned, it was a case wherein the complainant had died at the pre-trial stage and on the failure of his LRs coming on record, the accused was acquitted. In Kushal Kumar Talukdar, on the death of complainant, his son came on record and prosecuted the complaint and it was upheld by the High Court. These two decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. - 7 - 14. Thus, from the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that both applications are misconceived and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 and I.A.No.2/2025 are rejected. 15. Having regard to the fact that accused has failed to bring the LRs of complainant on record, the matter could not be proceeded with and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is dismissed for default. (ii) However, in the event of any of the LRs of complainant prosecuting the complaint, to enforce the conviction and sentence imposed against him, accused is at liberty to get this petition reopened and bring such person on record, as the LR of complainant and prosecute the same. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR