- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 805 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. YATHINDRA B S/O T. BANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO-B-3, CASA LAVELLE-4 12/5, LAVALLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESHA N,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P BHASKAR REDDY S/O T VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 176, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, N.G.E.F LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALURU-560 094. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.372/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.4954/2018 DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XV A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU CITY. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 on I.A.No.1/2026. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial Court in C.C.No.4954/2018 dated 31.01.2020, convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.’ Act for short) directing to pay fine amount of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs ten thousand only) with default sentence and the same is confirmed in Crl.A.No.372/2020 and the said order was passed on 09.02.2023. 2. The present revision petition is filed with delay of 1,100 days and the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is that the revision petitioner had gone to his native place for taking native treatment for jaundice and lost the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29609 CRL.RP No. 805 of 2026 mobile number of his counsel. As such, he could not contact him. 3. Having considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application that he had been to is native place and could not contact the advocate for a period of 1,100 days is not satisfactory. Further, the criminal proceeding was initiated in the year 2018 for bouncing of Cheque and already a period of eight years has elapsed. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to condone the delay period. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2026 is rejected and consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14