Karnataka High Court
The Manager / Secretary vs Krishnaji S/O Narayan Hanchate on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.A No.2617 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2617 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER / SECRETARY
SAUNDATTI TALUK, PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK,SAUNDATTI, BELAGAVI DIST. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASANAGOUDA
S/O VIRANAGOUDA KULKARNI,
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
J MAMATHA
Location: HIGH
OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
J COURT OF
KARNATAKA, R/O SAUNDATTI.
MAMATHA DHARWAD
BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.03.15
12:36:50 +0530 2. KRISHNAJI S/O NARAYAN
HANCHATE,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SAUNDATTI.
3. ADRASHAPPA
S/O GURUSHIDDAPPA
ADRASHANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOOLIKATTI.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDL. STATE
-2-
CRL.A No.2617 of 2011
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH,
DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R4:
SEVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED:
APPEAL AGAINST R1 AND R3 IS ABATED)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378(4) CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN
C.C.NO.417/93 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SOUNDATTI DATED 03.08.2010 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2023, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/complainant feeling aggrieved by the judgment
of acquittal passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti,
in C.C.No.417/1993 dated 03.08.2010, has preferred this
appeal.
2. On the strength of complaint filed by complainant,
criminal law was set into motion by registering a case in
Cr.No.436/1990 of Saundatti police station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 408, 409, 477(A) and 109 of IPC.
The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation filed
the charge-sheet.
CRL.A No.2617 of 2011
3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried for the aforesaid
offences and the trial Court after appreciation of evidence has
acquitted all the accused from the charges leveled against
them. The said order was assailed by appellant/complainant on
the grounds stated in the appeal memo.
4. The appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 3 stood
abated by order of this Court dated 05.07.2019. Respondent
No.2 though served remained absent and respondent No.4 is
represented through the High Court Government Pleader.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that appeal is not maintainable in terms of Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that Investigating Officer after
having completed the investigation filed charge-sheet in terms
of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered
before the trial Court as C.C.No.417/1993, after trial ended in
acquittal by judgment dated 03.08.2010. The present appeal is
filed invoking Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
7. On plain reading of proviso to Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. it would go to show that appeal in terms of Section
CRL.A No.2617 of 2011
378(4) Cr.P.C. can be maintained if any case is instituted upon
complaint and the High Court on an application made to it by
the complainant, in this behalf, grant special leave to appeal
from the order of acquittal. On granting such special leave the
complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
Therefore, from the said proviso, it is evident that where
complaint is instituted before the Magistrate in terms of Section
200 Cr.P.C. and on trial if the same ends in acquittal then only
appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before
the High Court.
8. The learned counsel for appellant/complainant also
does not dispute the position of law and has filed a memo
dated 07.10.2021 and produced the copies of order passed by
this Court in Crl.A.Nos.2618/2011 and 2619/2011 dated
18.12.2020.
9. Therefore, in view of the reasons recorded as
above, the appeal brought by appellant/complainant in terms of
Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in law. However,
the appellant is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court in
accordance with law. If any such appeal or proceedings is filed,
then the time spent before this Court in prosecuting the present
CRL.A No.2617 of 2011
appeal deserves to be considered leniently by the concerned
Court. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by appellant/complainant is hereby
dismissed.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
Jm/-
