- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010649772025 NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1485 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI R SIDDALINGA MURTHY S/O RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.45/46, 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS, JAIMARUTHINAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. USHA M V, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI DEVAPPA S/O G. MUNJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 52/11, 2ND CROSS VIDHYANAGAR KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560086 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH N R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010649772025 NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-62) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2481/2018 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 I.A.No.1/2025 is filed praying this Court to condone the delay of 575 days in filing the petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties on I.A.No.1/2025. In the affidavit accompanying to the application to condone the delay of 575 days in preferring this revision petition, the petitioner being an employee of Education Department working as a SDA gives the flimsy reasons in paragraph 7 with regard to the filing of criminal appeal and he never contacted the counsel on record when the appeal was pending. Even in paragraph 11 also, he deposed that surprisingly he met with his advocate. That means he did not made any efforts to contact his advocate even after the disposal of the criminal appeal in the year 2023. The reasons - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010649772025 NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025 assigned that only the advocate has informed that advocate father was suffering from liver cancer. But what prevented the petitioner to approach the advocate is not stated in the affidavit. The reasons assigned in the said application is not satisfactory since each day delay has not been explained properly. When such affidavit is filed, I do not find any ground to entertain the said application. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN