- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 559 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.819, EWS, B SECTOR, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.S. RAGHAVENDRA, SON OF H.S. SAJEEVA SHETTY, AGED 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, KHB, QUARTERS, 3RD BLOCK, 1ST AND 3RD EAST JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.28753/2018 DATED 28.04.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY CRL.A.NO.935/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU DATED 22.08.2025 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on I.A.No.1/2026 for condoning the delay of 127 days in filing this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in jail and his mother is in a precarious health condition and hence, he may be released from the jail. 3. On perusal of records, it is noticed that the complaint was filed in the year 2018. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act directing him to pay an amount of ₹.4,50,000/-, in default, to undergo sentence for a period of one year. The same is challenged in the Crl.A.No.935/2023, in which, the judgment of conviction is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026 confirmed and sentence is modified, in case of default from one year to six months and inspite of it, he did not comply with the order of the Appellate Court and even chose to challenge the order of the Appellate Court. Though the order of the Appellate Court was passed on 22.08.2025, he is undergoing sentence based on the conviction warrant and there is a delay of 127 days and only after his arrest, when he was undergoing sentence, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Having considered the grounds urged in the revision petition and also taking note of the conduct of the revision petitioner that he did not comply with the order of Appellate Court, i.e., conditional order of suspension of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that voluntarily he is facing the sentence and already four and half months he has served the sentence and in view of modification of the order passed by the Appellate Court only sentence is for 6 months. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29246 CRL.RP No. 559 of 2026 6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to consider this revision petition. Since there is a delay of 127 days in filing this revision petition, the question of entertaining this revision petition also does not arise. The scope of revision is very limited and only if the trial Court and Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record, then only this Court can exercise the revisional powers. 7. Having considered the factual aspects and also the conduct of the revision petitioner, question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise and hence, the revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 and I.A.No.2/2026 are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19