- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.654 OF 2026 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.665 OF 2026 IN CRL.RP NO.654/2026: BETWEEN: 1. M/S. PRESIDENCY BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS, REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT B5, PRESIDENCY ZONE-1, BENDOORWELL, MANGALORE-575002 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. HYDER ALI K. 2. HYDER ALI K., S/O MR. ABUBACKER, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.104, PRESEDINCY ENCLAVE SAPPIRE BLOCK, BENDOORWELL, MANGALURU-575002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PURUSHOTHAMA A., S/O K. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT SHARADHI SHREE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 ANIL KUMBLE ROAD, BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, KUMBLE, KASARGOD-671321. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2026 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.421 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU. IN CRL.RP NO.665/2026: BETWEEN: 1. M/S. PRESIDENCY BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS, REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT B5, PRESIDENCY ZONE-1, BENDOORWELL, MANGALORE-575002, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. HYDER ALI K. 2. HYDER ALI K., S/O MR. ABUBACKER, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.104, PRESEDINCY ENCLAVE SAPPIRE BLOCK, BENDOORWELL, MANGALURU-575002. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PURUSHOTHAMA A., S/O K. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 R/AT SHARADHI SHREE, ANIL KUMBLE ROAD, BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, KUMBLE, KASARGOD-671321. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 16.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.419/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER These two revision petitions are filed against the order of remand passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.421/2025 and Crl.A.No.419/2025 vide order dated 16.02.2026. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused. The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and the cheque was bounced and proceedings was initiated and ultimately, the case was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the respondent/complainant before the Trial Court. The same is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 challenged by filing an appeal with delay of 1 year 11 months and the Appellate Court having considered the delay, extracted the reasons assigned in paragraph No.19, wherein the complainant/respondent has explained under what circumstances he was prevented in appearing before the Trial Court, wherein he categorically stated that advocate made believe him to that case is going to be settled and the accused is going to settle the matter and hence, he did not appear before the Court and ultimately, the same was dismissed and the same was also not intimated and hence there was a delay of 1 year 11 months in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court having considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit, in detail discussed the same and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.460/1987, wherein an observation is made that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 3. In the case on hand, the case was not decided on merits and also taking into note of when the explanation was given by the appellant/complainant before the Appellate Court, the same is also considered by the Appellate Court and taken note of the complainant is also a old man aged about 75 years and considering the cheque amount is also Rs.20,00,000/-, at the most matter will be dragged, but it will not cause any prejudice to the revision petitioner, who is the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the Appellate Court has not imposed any cost on the complainant. No doubt, there was a delay of 1 year 11 months in filing the appeal, but the delay was explained and the matter was not considered on merits and hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Appellate Court ought to have imposed the cost considering the age of the complainant, who is aged about 75 years. The delay is also on account of no communication between the counsel and the complainant before the Trial Court and the same is substantiated that even notice was issued to the advocate, who was on record on behalf of the complainant before the Trial Court and the same was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28108 CRL.RP No. 654 of 2026 C/W CRL.RP No. 665 of 2026 served, but no response from the advocate. The circumstances under which the delay was caused is explained by the complainant and the same is taken note of by the Appellate Court and hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Appellate Court committed an error in remanding the matter. At the most, the matter will be considered on merits and the revision petitioner can raise his defence before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has already directed to dispose of the matter within a time bound period. In view of filing of the revision before this Court, the matter is still pending and hence, it is appropriate to extend the time till 30.09.2026 to dispose of the case and the same is only a modification. 5. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7