- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28714 CRL.RP No. 1858 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1858 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S KARPAGAM AGRO HI TECH INDIA (P) LTD KAVANDANOOR VILLAGE AND POST, MATHUR-635 203. KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. V.VEDIYAPPAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NALINI JAYANTHI R, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S AGA FRUIT (P) LTD REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT NO.14, BERLIE STREET LANGFORD TOWN BANGALORE-560 025. ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO.18, HAYATH RESIDENCY KEMP ROAD, NEAR COLES PARK FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560 005 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE C.E.O MR. SYED ATEEQ THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. IRSHAD AHMED K, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28714 CRL.RP No. 1858 of 2025 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1026/2019 DATED 03.09.2025 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER On perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that on 15.04.2026, original demand draft for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with the memo was filed before the Court and this Court granted time to pay the balance amount which would cover 50% of the fine amount. On 21.04.2026, this Court taking note that despite granting sufficient time, petitioner has failed to make the payment as agreed, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The non-bailable warrant is not executed. However, this revision petition is not yet admitted. Hence, question of consideration of this revision petition does not arise. 2. I.A.No.1/2026 is filed under Section 70 (2) of Cr.P.C. for recalling the warrant issued against the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28714 CRL.RP No. 1858 of 2025 In view of undertaking given before the Court to deposit the balance fine amount has not been done, consideration application for recalling the warrant does not arise. Hence, I.A.No.1/2026 is rejected. So also, as the revision petition is also dismissed since the matter is not yet admitted. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN