- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 652 OF 2023 IN CRL.A No. 20/2024: BETWEEN: K. SELVARAJU S/O KUPPASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.1174/1, BEHIND B.D.O. OFFICE, BETHUR RAOD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: M SHEKAR S/O MUTHUDEVA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O PROPRIETOR SUDHIKSHA MOBILE SERVICE CENTRE, OPP. BUS-STAND, HONNALI, HONNALI TALUQ, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 372 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT JMFC THIRD Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023 COURT AT DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.912/2015 DATED 27.06.2017 BY ENHANCE THE CONVICTION OF SENTENCE AND FINE AMOUNT FROM RS.5,75,000/- TO RS.8,00,000/- BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ETC., IN CRL.RP NO. 652/2023: BETWEEN: SRI. M SHEKAR S/O MUTTUDEV AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: MOBILE SERVICE CENTRE R/AT BUS STAND, HONNALI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577217. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. K SELVARAJU S/O P KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO 1174/1, BEHIND BDO OFFICE, BETHUR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.06.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.912/2015 BY THE J.M.F.C. - - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023 III COURT, DAVANAGERE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.73/2017 BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW, ETC., THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT In Crl.A.No.20 of 2024: Heard Sri.Halli Shantappa Basappa, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Appellant is the complainant seeking enhancement of the fine amount without approaching the Sessions Court. 3. Since the order of the Trial Magistrate is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the accused, without there being any appeal or the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023 revision before the First Appellate Court, filing an appeal before this Court by the complainant, that too seeking the enhancement of the compensation amount is per-se not maintainable. 4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. In Crl.R.P.No.652 of 2023: Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Halli Shantappa Basappa, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Accused is the revision petitioner who has challenged the order of conviction in CC No. 912 of 2015, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.73 by 2017 with a delay of 322 days. 6. I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 322 days. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023 7. The reasons assigned in the affidavit of the wife of the accused are hardly sufficient to condone the huge delay. 8. Taking note of the fact that the concurrent finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate as well as the First Appellate Court, also taking note of the fact that there was no defence evidence and the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose could be served by condoning the delay and entertaining the revision petition on merits. 9. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is rejected. 10. Consequently, revision petition is also rejected. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13