- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27084 CRL.RP No. 416 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2026 (397(CR.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: M/S RUBBER MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE LTD (RUBTECH INDIA) NO. C-30, 2ND FLOOR A-1 RAHBA PLAZA, NELLIKAI ROAD MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. JOSE THATHYAMKULAM S/O GORGE THATHYAMKULAM AGED 63 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K RAVI SHANKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: SANDEEP K T S/O K.C. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BOLLA HOUSE AJEKAR POST, MARNE VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574101 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS RP AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.38/2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI (ITINERARY SITTING AT KARKALA) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1321/2015 PASSED BY THE II Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27084 CRL.RP No. 416 of 2026 ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C KARKALA AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. The matter is listed for admission. 2. I.A.No.1 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 1593 days in filing the criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, having considered that there was an inordinate delay and noting that the other side had filed objections, posted the matter on 03.11.2025 for enquiry on I.A.No.1, in order to satisfy itself regarding the delay of 1593 days. On 03.11.2025, again the matter was adjourned to 17.11.2025 and on 17.11.2025, the appellant’s counsel was present and sought time and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 02.12.2025. Thereafter on 02.12.2025, neither the appellant’s counsel nor the appellant chose to appear before the First Appellate Court and therefore, the matter was finally adjourned to 22.12.2025. On that day, the Presiding Officer (PO) was on leave and hence, the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2026. On 13.01.2026 again, both appellant’s counsel - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27084 CRL.RP No. 416 of 2026 as well as the appellant remained absent and the matter was passed over and called again at 04.45 p.m. Even at 04.45 p.m., the counsel as well as the appellant remained absent and there was no representation. 3. The First Appellate Court, having taken note of the fact that sufficient time had already been granted, and having regard to the nature of the case, granted one final opportunity subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/- and adjourned the matter for enquiry on I.A.No.1 as a final chance to 27.01.2026. On 27.01.2026 also, the appellant’s counsel as well as the appellant remained absent. Once again, the matter was passed over and called again at 05.00 p.m. Even at 05.00 p.m., there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. The First Appellate Court, upon perusal of the earlier proceedings, observed that despite sufficient opportunities having been granted and cost having been imposed, the appellant failed to appear before the Court to adduce evidence in the enquiry on I.A.No.1 filed for condonation of delay of 1593 days. The cost imposed was also not paid. Hence, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the case and that no grounds were made out to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27084 CRL.RP No. 416 of 2026 adjourn the matter once again. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 4. Having considered the fact that there was an inordinate delay in filing the criminal appeal, and even though the revision petitioner was represented through counsel before the Trial Court, no appeal was filed within time and the delay of 1593 days was also not properly explained. Even when opportunity was granted by the First Appellate Court to explain the same, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Though cost was imposed, the same was also not paid and the appellant failed to appear before the First Appellate Court. Ultimately, the matter came to be dismissed at 05.00 p.m. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HA