- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16994 CRL.A No. 100443 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100443 OF 2023 (A-) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAGHAV RAJASHEKHAR KALAL, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO. 3575, RAMATIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. PRAVEENKUMAR TATYASAHEB DESAI, PARTNER OF VIRASAST REALITIES, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO. 2324, KANABARGI ROAD, OPP: INDIAN OIL PETROL PUMP, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590016. 2. SHRI. TATYASAHEB APPASAHEB DESAI, PARTNER OF VIRASAST REALITIES, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO. 2324, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16994 CRL.A No. 100443 of 2023 KANABARGI ROAD, OPP: INDIAN OIL PETROL PUMP, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590016. 3. M/S. VIRASAST FIRM, R/O: PLOT NO. 2324, KANABARGI ROAD, OPP: INDIAN OIL, PETROL PUMP, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF C.C.NO. 1249/2019 ON THE FILE OF JMFC V COURT BELAGAVI AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER IN C.C.NO. 1249/2019 DATED 13.07.2023 PASSED BY THE JUDGE OF THE JMFC V COURT, BELAGAVI, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT 1881 AND PASS A JUDGEMENT CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND ALSO DIRECTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS TO PAY A FINE DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFORESAID CHEQUE OF RS.22,50,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 NI ACT, 1881. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16994 CRL.A No. 100443 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 2. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1, held in paragraph No.10 as under: “10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16994 CRL.A No. 100443 of 2023 to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Celestial supra, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 19.01.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16994 CRL.A No. 100443 of 2023 7. The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof. 8. For statistical purpose, this appeal stands disposed off. 9. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 81