[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dinesh.C.M on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1919 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
CHIKKMAGALURU REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
BENGALURU-560001. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
AND:
1. DINESH.C.M
S/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
WORKING AS AUTO DRIVER,
R/AT CHIKKA GOUJA,
Digitally signed CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH 2. REHAMAN HUSSAIN
COURT OF S/O ASHRAD AAHAAB,
KARNATAKA OWNER OF AUTO BEARING
NO.KA-18-B-3850, NEAR K.E.B. OFFICE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ODF ACQUITTAL DATED 21.09.2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.C.J.M COURT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.400/2014 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 338, 337,
304A OF IPC AND SECTION 113 AND 194 AND 146 R/W 196 OF IMV
ACT AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. I.A.No.1/2021 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 430 days in filing this appeal.
2. This application is supported with the affidavit of Anjali
Devi, the Deputy Director of Prosecution, in which it is stated
that the judgment was passed by the I Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Chikkamagalur in CC.No.400/2014 on 21.09.2019
and the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor had filed the
application to get the copy of the judgment on 23.09.2019 and
had received the judgment copy on 22.10.2019 and thereafter,
he gave his opinion on 23.10.2019 and sent the same to the
Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division. The said Law Officer
had received the file on 08.11.2019 and gave his opinion on
16.11.2019 and sent it to the Director of Prosecution,
Bengaluru on 16.05.2020. The last date for filing of the appeal
was on 26.01.2020.
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
3. Further, it is stated that Sri. R. Badrinath, the Deputy
Director of Prosecution, who was also working as public
prosecutor gave his opinion on 04.08.2020 and has also opined
that it was a fit case to file an appeal and accordingly the file
was sent to this Court on 07.08.2020.
4. It is also stated that as the State has got a very good
case on merits and point of law, there is a every likelihood of
succeeding before this Court. As such, the delay is bona fide
and unintentional and if the delay is not condoned, the State
will be put to substantial injury and on the other hand, no harm
and injustice would be caused to the respondent. On these
grounds, the appellant sought to allow I.A.No.1/2021.
5. This Court on 04.12.2025 has passed the following order:
"This appeal is filed against the judgment of
acquittal after lapse of 430 days. In the affidavit of
Anjali Devi, Deputy Director of Prosecution, it is
stated that the Assistant Public Prosecutor received
the copy of the judgment on 22.10.2019 and he has
given his opinion on 23.10.2019 and sent to the Law
Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division. The Law Officer
(Senior), Mangaluru Division received the file on
08.11.2019 and has given his opinion on 16.11.2019
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
and sent to the Director of Prosecution, Bangalore.
The file received on 16.05.2020.
In view of the provision under Section
378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Director of Prosecution or the Law Officer (Senior),
Mangaluru Division, is not required to prefer appeal.
However, in the affidavit, it is stated as above.
Hence, the appellant is directed to submit their
clarification as to whether the Law Officer (Senior),
Mangaluru Division and the Director of Prosecution,
Bangalore is required to prefer the appeal against the
judgment of acquittal.
At the request of learned High Court
Government Pleader, list the matter for 'Arguments'
finally on 15.12.2025."
6. The Director in-charge of Department of Prosecution and
Government Litigations, Bengaluru has submitted his report as
under:
"Subject: "Submission of Report in Criminal
Appeal No.1919/2021".
Reference: " As per direction of Hon'ble Court
dated: 04/12/2025".
******
With reference to the above subject, it is
humbly submitted that, the State Government has
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
filed this Criminal Appeal No: 1919/2021 before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the
Judgement of Acquittal dated 21/09/2019 passed
in C.C.No: 400/2014 by Hon'ble First Additional C.J
and JMFC Court, Chikkamagaluru.
It is submitted that, this Hon'ble High Court
has sought clarification as to whether the Law Officer
(Senior), Mangalore Division and the Director of
Prosecution, Bengaluru is required to prefer an
appeal against the judgement of acquittal in view of
the provision under section 378(1)(a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure
It is submitted that, in C.C. No: 400/2014 the
offences alleged to have been committed by the
accused are the offences punishable under sections
279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and
sections 113, 194, 196 read with 196 of Motor
Vehicle Act as well. It is further submitted that, the
offence punishable under section 304(A) is classified
as a cognizable and bailable offence as per the first
schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908. The
extract of the first schedule is produced herewith for
the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as annexure-A
It is humbly submitted that, to prefer an
appeal against the judgement of acquittal passed
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
when the offences are cognizable and bailable in
nature, the provisions contained in section 378(1)(b)
would be applied. Section 378 of Criminal Procedure
Code is reproduced herewith.
378 Appeal in case of acquittal.-[(1) Save as
otherwise provided in sub-section(2), and subject to
the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),-
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case,
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the Court of Session from an
order of acquittal passed by Magistrate in
respect of a cognisable and non-bailable
offence,
(b) the state Government may, in any case,
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court from an original or
appellate order of an acquittal passed by
any Court other than a High Court (not
being an order under clause(a)] or an order
of acquittal passed by the Court of Session
in revision]
It is humbly submitted that, on careful reading of the
above section it is clear that,
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
- against an order passed by jurisdictional Judicial
Magistrate in respect of offences which are
cognizable and non-bailable in nature appeal to be
presented before the Sessions Court by the Public
Prosecutor upon direction by the District Magistrate
as stated in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section
378 of Criminal Procedure Code
- against an order not being an order under clause
(a) appeal to be presented before the Hon'ble High
Court by the Public Prosecutor upon direction by the
Government as stated in clause (b) of sub section
(1) of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code.
It is further submitted that, as per the
Government Order ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ME:381:¦¦E:2007,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 25£Éà ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï 2007, the Law officer
(Senior) has to take decisions to prefer an appeal in
cases in which punishment is upto 07 years and the
Director of Prosecutions has to take decisions to
prefer an appeal in cases in which punishment is up
to 10 years and hence, The then Director of
Prosecutions and Government Litigations has sent
the file to the State Public Prosecutor to present this
appeal before this Hon'ble High Court. The copy of
the above said order dated 25/09/2007 is produced
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble High
Court as Annexure-B
It is further submitted that, I the undersigned
is submitting herewith clarification as stated above
as per the direction of this Hon'ble High Court dated
04/12/2025."
7. It is seen that as per the letter addressed by the Director,
Department of Prosecution and Government Litigations,
Bengaluru, the Law Officer (senior) has to take a call to prefer
an appeal in cases in which the punishment is upto 7 years and
the Director of Prosecution has to take a call to prefer an
appeal in which punishment is upto 10 years.
8. In the case on hand, it is stated in the affidavit that the
Law Officer, (Senior) Mangaluru Division has received the file
on 08.11.2019 and gave his opinion on 16.11.2019. Though the
Law Officer (Senior), Mangalore Division has given his opinion
on 16.11.2019, this appeal was not filed till 23.03.2021. Thus,
the prosecution has failed to place sufficient cause to condone
the abnormal delay of 430 days in preferring this appeal.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following
NC: 2026:KHC:3667
HC-KAR
ORDER
I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of
430 days in filing this appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
