- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2024 (A) BETWEEN: BHAGAVATHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT VENAKTARAMANA ARCADE, BHAVANTHI STREET, MARKET ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 001. REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR. SATHISH S/O MADHAVA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT JEPPU BAPPAL, MANGALORE - 575 00. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: ROHIT ULLAL, S/O KOTE V., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GANDHI NAGAR, KAPIKAD POST, ULLAL, MANGALURU - 575 017. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2023 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C IV MANGALORE D.K IN C.C.NO.5675/2019 WHEREIN TRIAL COURT ACQUITTED ACQUITTED THE RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ETC., Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT ORDER ON IA.I/2024 1. IA.I/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 319 days in filing this appeal. The said application is supported with affidavit of one Satish, S/o Madhava in which he has stated that, at the time of filing the complaint before the Trial Court one Jayanthi was the Branch Manager at Market Road Branch and she had filed complaint before the court. Thereafter, Jayanthi was transferred from the Market Road Branch to some other branch and the deponent was posted as Branch Manager of Market Road Branch and he had appeared before the Trial Court and was subjected to cross examination by the defense counsel. After conclusion of trial before the Trial Court, in the month of August, he was transferred to Vitla Branch and one Manoranjan was transferred to the Market Road Branch as Branch Manager. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 2. After transfer from the Market Road Branch, the appellant lost track of the matter and Manoranjan who was working as Branch manager at that point of time was not aware about the present proceedings. In the month of March 2024, the appellant was transferred to the Recovery Section of their Bank. Thereafter, in the first week of April 2024, the appellant contacted their advocate who had conducted present case before Trial Court. At this juncture, it came to his knowledge that, the Trial Court disposed of the complaint vide order dated 21.03.2023 and acquitted the respondent. Their Advocate informed appellant that on 30.03.2023 he had applied for certified copy of the judgment and certified copy of the judgment delivered on 06.04.2023 and he further informed the appellant that, no one from their bank contacted him enquiring about the present case and he was not able to contact any of bank officials, since he was not having contact number of any of their bank officials. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 3. Thereafter, their advocate handed over all case papers pertaining to the present case and advised the appellant to file appeal before this Court. 4. Immediately, the appellant contacted their advocate at Bangalore for filing of present appeal before this Court. Their Advocate then informed the appellant that, there is a delay in preferring the above appeal. Hence, appellant has filed the present application and as per the reasons stated above, the present application is bonafide and delay is not an intentional one and on all these grounds, he sought for allowing this application. 5. The respondent appeared before this Court and filed his written objection contending that the Trial Court has acquitted the accused on 21.03.2023. After lapse of 319 days, the appellant filed IA.I/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing this appeal. This application is supported with the affidavit, but there is no explanation regarding the inordinate delay of 319 days. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 The appellant should explain about each and everyday of delay caused in preferring the appeal. On perusal of IA for condonation of delay thereof, the same does not even remotely suggest justifiable reasons for cause of delay. No averments have been made as to what was the basis for causing such an inordinate delay, except stating that he was transferred from his position and no one from his Bank contacted the advocate. In view of provision of Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C., no application under Sub- section (4) of said Section for grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal, shall be entertained by the High Court after expiry of 6 months, where the complainant is a public servant and 60 days in every other case computed from the date of that order of acquittal. In the present case, the appellant not being a public servant apart from that, there is a delay of 319 days in preferring the appeal. There is no proper explanation for inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. On all these grounds, he sought for dismissal of this application. To substantiate his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mod. Abaad Ali and another Vs. Directors of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 162. 6. The respondent-Rohit Ullal has filed his verifying affidavit along with statement of objections. 7. After having heard the arguments on both sides and having perused the materials placed before me, the points that would arise for my consideration are: i) Whether the appellant has made out sufficient cause to allow IA.I/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? ii) What order? 8. My answer to the above points as under: i) Negative ii) As per final order. Regarding Point No.1 9. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The complainant/appellant Sri Bhagavathi Co- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 operative Bank Limited filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. After taking cognizance, the case was registered in CC.No.5675/2019. Thereafter one Jayanthi was examined as PW-1 and 24 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.24 and on closure of complainant side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused had adduced his evidence as DW-1 and marked one document as Ex.D.1. Thereafter, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused as per judgment dated 21.03.2023. The certified copy of the judgment reveals that the appellant had applied the copy of the judgment on 23.03.2023, same was ready on 06.04.2023 and copy delivered on the same day. The appellant has filed this appeal on 18.04.2024. 10. The Bhagavathi Co-operative Bank Limited-appellant is a statutory body represented by learned counsel Sri Ramaprasad.S. The appellant has not furnished proper explanation as to inordinate delay of more than 300 days in filing this appeal. The appellant has not produced any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42555 CRL.A No. 792 of 2024 materials to substantiate the averments made in the affidavit. Regarding Point No.2: 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mod. Abaad Ali and another (Supra), I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) IA.I/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. ii) Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. iii) All pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT:PH