- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19146 CRL.RP No. 498 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.498 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR. RAMESH PUPPALA S/O LATE SUBBARAO, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O. H.NO:10-5-24, 10-5-28 TO 60 FLAT NO: MG 3, AHMED NAGAR, GARDEN TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-500 028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M R SHALAMALA, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SANJJANNA ARCHANA GALRANI, C/o. MR. AZEEZ PASHA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 47, FLAT NO:001, SAI TEJA SHRINE, OFF 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR-560 008. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.25118/2025 BY THE HON’BLE LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AND BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19146 CRL.RP No. 498 of 2026 25.01.2025 IN C.C.No.56255/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXXIV A.C.J.M, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo which reads as under: “The undersigned counsel for petitioner submits that the above petition may be permitted to be withdrawn or dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeal in the ends of justice.” 2. Memo is taken on record. 3. Revision petitioner herein is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction by the learned First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25118/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby order of the learned Trial Magistrate acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reversed and the revision petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- and fine of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19146 CRL.RP No. 498 of 2026 4. Accused has rightly filed an appeal against the order of conviction passed by the First Appellate Court at the first instance in Crl.A.No.422/2026. 5. However, office has wrongly raised the objection with regard to the maintainability and as such the accused filed a memo before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and learned Judge considering the memo, passed an order as under: “Learned counsel for the appellant files a memo dated 06.03.2026 seeking leave of this Court to conver this appeal into Criminal Revision Petition. 2. Memo is taken on record. 3. In view of the memo, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to convert this appeal into Criminal Revision Petition. 4. For statistical purpose, this criminal appeal stands disposed of.” 6. Thereafter, the appeal in Crl.A.No.422/2026 was permitted to be converted into Crl.R.P.No.498/2026. 7. In the first place, conversion of an appeal into the revision petition or vice versa is impermissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the High Court Rules. It is a matter of convenience that has been followed which has no statutory support or the basis. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19146 CRL.RP No. 498 of 2026 8. However, in the case on hand, since already there is a judicial order permitting the accused to convert the appeal into the revision petition which is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time before the First Appellate Court and proper remedy is to file an appeal against the order of the First Appellate Court which has been done by the accused at the first instance, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the memo and permitting the petitioner to withdraw and file a fresh appeal in accordance with law. 9. Time spent in all these proceedings shall be excluded in the intended fresh appeal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 10. Likewise, office is directed to return the certified copy of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after keeping the photocopy thereon. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 79