Called again in the afternoon.

None appear in this matter, either physically or

through video conference.

2. The present petition has been filed by the accused

in the Trial Court in C.C.No.9364/2013, challenging the

confirmation of his conviction by the learned Sessions

Judge's Court for the offence punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said

impugned judgment in the Sessions Judge's Court was

passed in Criminal Appeal No.630/2016 on the date

19-12-2019. The present petition was filed in the registry

on 13-05-2020.

3

3. After filing of this revision petition, large number of

hearing dates were passed by, wherein several orders were

passed including allowing I.A.No.2/2020 filed by the

petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking

condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the present revision

petition. The said order was passed on 13-01-2021. On

the very same day, it appears one more order was passed

on I.A.No.1/2020 filed by the present petitioner (accused)

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C"), seeking

suspension of the impugned judgment of conviction and

order

on

sentence

passed

by

the

Trial

Court

in

C.C.No.9364/2013

and

dated

23-04-2016.

The

said

I.A.No.1/2020 also came to be allowed, however, subject to

certain conditions including executing personal bond and

also depositing some percentage of fine amount ordered by

the Trial Court. Notice was also ordered to the respondent

in the matter. However, due to non-payment of the process

and non-furnishing of copies in the registry, it appears that

the notice also has not yet been issued to the respondent.

4

4. Subsequently, on the date 01-04-2021, when this

matter was called, none appeared in this matter for the

petitioner, as such, as finally, ten days9 time was granted,

making it clear that, in case appropriate steps are not

taken, the Court would proceed to pass appropriate order

including dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution and

for not taking steps.

5. On the date 17-04-2021, when the case was

called, once again none appeared in this matter. As finally,

once again, a week9s time was granted.

6. Subsequently, on the date 23-09-2022, when the

matter was called in the Court, it was submitted at the Bar

that, the learned counsel - Sri.K.N. Rakshit was no more.

Hence, this Court ordered for issuance of court notice to the

petitioner, returnable by today, i.e. 17.10.2022.

7. Now, the Police report submitted by the Police

Inspector of Whitefield Police Station, Bangalore District,

which is dated 12-10-2022, mentions that, by enquiry though his

5

staff, it was revealed that the present petitioner (accused) -

Sri. M. Ravikumar is no more and that he is dead on the

date 17-02-2020. In support of the said report, the Police

Inspector has also filed the statement of Sri. Santhosh H.M.

the Head Constable (HC-11075) of the said Police Station

and a photo copy of the Death Certificate of the petitioner -

Sri.M. Ravikumar.

8. A perusal of the photocopy of the Death Certificate

of

the

petitioner

herein

would

go

to

show

that,

Sri. M. Ravikumar is shown to have been died as long back

as on the date 17-02-2020. Neither the Police Report nor

the Death Certificate has been disputed, since the learned

counsel for the petitioner himself has continuously remained

absent.

9. All the above details of the observations are made

for the reason that, if the Police Report is taken into

consideration and the death report of the petitioner is

accepted, it goes to show that, much prior to the filing of

the present revision petition, the petitioner was already

6

dead. The petitioner (accused) is shown to have died on

the date 17-02-2020, however, the present petition is filed

on the date 13-05-2020 i.e. nearly three months after his

alleged death as though he was living as on the date of

filing of the petition.

10. Furthermore, I.A.No.1/20