- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16980 CRL.A No. 100259 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. 100259 OF 2023 (A-) BETWEEN: THE GHATAPRABHA FERTILIZERS PVT. LTD., NANDIKURALI REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. SHASHIKANT S/O RAJARAM PURMAVAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, R/O: ANAND NILAYA OPP KEB, RAIBAG, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BEALGAVI, BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. KRISHNA BABU GURAV, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NANDIKURALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591317. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DEVINDRAPPA HIREKURUBAR, PROP: SRI. HAYYALLINGESHWAR AGRO. AGENCIES, DEALERS IN SEEDS, FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES MAIN ROAD, KHANAPUR, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI- 585319. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C. NO.187/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DTD. 06.04.2023 MADE IN C.C. NO.187/2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG AS THE SAME BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 138 OF NI ACT IN THE ABOVE CASE. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16980 CRL.A No. 100259 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16980 CRL.A No. 100259 of 2023 complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16980 CRL.A No. 100259 of 2023 6. The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. 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.: 69