IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2oo9p""i--.o
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS"E"ICE JAWAD A A
M1sc.cRL.No.4s:§[2"o'693:
IN
CRL.RP.Nc--;::l_25 [2069
BETWEEN: A
Sri Bhaskar,
S/0 Manjunath Achary,
Aged 32 years, - V .
R/o Sangarraeshwarapet, 1
Chikkamagalur PETITIONER
(BY SR1 e.B.s:'HVASTé'Y,'--~Aoivigijn7
AND:
Dr. Ganesxh.F{u.mVar,VV
S/0 K.Ragha'vta,* V A
Aged: 3'9_yearS; V'
Now regijiding at Afifirtjtha 'Clinic,
A Vlfiha vu !"..a'~g fed ea,
:"v.MangAaiore,' .o.p<';~.::)istrict. ...RESPONDENT
( BY 5 ?V_E_T..1 SAVI'_$.,iDu JAMA DAG N1, ADV.)
Thie Aimisceiianeous criminal appiicatfon is fiied under
5*of the Limitation Act by the adovcate for the
__p'e_t}tiVon"er praying that this Hon'bie Court may be pieased to
_eon*d_o'rie'the delay of 219 days in fiiing the Revision Petition.
" This appiication coming on for orders, this day, the
icourt made the foiiowing:
éilx
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsei for the petitionerfon the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation~«~Ac_tVi:s’eel§ing
condonation of delay of 219 days in filing therelrlsio’nA_l.:pe_titlloii..
The application is supported by the§.affid:a\:«iVt”‘of*t’he_.:
wherein he has explained certain circii’mst~ances..5I . A Q’
2. The respondent has npotfl’*’vfiledLA co:j1’nt.er,_r§ but the
application is opposed onitihe circumstances
explained do not rn’al_<_e outa'ri§{case:'vi»for Vconxdonation of deiay.
View to Zggrant'pail–«w._Qi'pp»o'r'tl§'n-i._ty -to the petitioner who has
– ~ g c. ‘
challenged the conviction; the delay needs to be condoned.
V-‘:;§:cco–rd:ngly, V’EVE’i’sc’;’Cr’l.No.-453/2009 is allowed. Delay of
the revision petition is condoned subject to
thel’p_etition.er:_.paying cost of R3200/– to the respondent
two Weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
% » l<i<