- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: 1. YAJNESHWARA @ YADDU S/O LATE LOKAYYA MAISTRY, MAJOR, R/A DINESH APARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR KUDROLI TEMPLE, BARKE, MANGALORE - 575 004. 2. ANWAR S/O ABUBAKKER, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A PAKKALADKA MAJEED, BAJAL, J M ROAD, BAJAL, MANGALORE-575 004. 3. PAVEEN KUMAR, S/O LATE DAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A PLAMA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.401, KOTTARA CROSS, MANGALORE - 575 004. 4. JAGADEESHA NAYAK S/O LATE DEVADAS NAYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A COCONUT GARDEN, MAROLI, KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE-575003. 5. GANESH K S S/O KRISHNA SHETTY Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/NEAR GOKARNA TEMPLE, G T COMPOUND, KUDROLI, MANGALORE-575003. 6. DIVAKARA S/O DAMODARA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NEAR GUNDURAO NURSERY, MANNAGUDDA, MANGALORE - 575 001. 7. R ACHUTHA BHAT S/O A P R BHAT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A ASHOK, ASHOKNAGARA ROAD, URVA STORE, MANGALORE - 575 002. 8. HONNAYYA S/O LATE SHEENA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A SADANANDA SUVARNA COMPOUND, ASHOKA NAGARA, MANGALORE - 575 001. 9. CHITHRANJAN SHETTY S/O LATE PANDURANGA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A D.NO.2-100 NEAR PEGASUS HOTEL, JEPPINAMOGARU ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001. 10. CORNEL D SOUZA S/O LATE GILBERT D' SOUZA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A DOLO HOUSE, NAGORI, KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE - 575 201. 11. RAJA NAYAK S/O LATE CHIDANANDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A KANJOOR PANJA, ARYAPU POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574 201. 12. SURESH DEVADIGA, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A RAMA KAMALA, NEAR KADRI TEMPLE, MANGALORE - 575 002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION, D.K. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.RANGASWAMY, HCGP.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.454 OF CR.P.C TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.A.NO.189/2013 BY THE COURT OF II - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 3.7.2014 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.189/13 BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CONFISCATION OF M.O.1. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.189/2013 dated 03.07.2014 regarding confiscation of M.O.1 - cash of Rs.5,65,815/-. The Director of Prosecution and Government litigation, has submitted the report as per the order of this Court. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of police, East Police station, Mangalore has laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 3. The trial Court i.e., JMFC (IV-Court), Mangalore has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The trial Court has also passed an order to return the amount M.O.1 to the accused persons from whom it was recovered as reflected in Ex.P1 mahazar after appeal period is over. 4. The State has preferred the appeal against the order of acquittal before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.189/2013, the appeal came to be allowed. The learned Sessions Judge has passed an order to confiscate M.Os.1, 2 and 4 to the State. Being aggrieved by this order of confiscation of M.O.1, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that both the Courts have acquitted the accused for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Since, there was no other claim in respect of amount of Rs.5,65,815/- seized by the police under mahazar-Ex.P1 from accused persons, the said amount is required to be returned to the persons from whom it is seized. The trial Court has rightly directed the office to return the money M.O.1 to the persons from whom it was seized as per Ex.P1. The first Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the order and hence, sought for allowing this appeal. 6. This Court has passed on order on 11.11.2025, to call for the report from the Department of prosecution on following point: "Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Sessions Court against the order of acquittal, when the offences are non-cognizable and bailable. If not, how the concerned department has accorded sanction to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 7. Today the Director, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation, Bengaluru has submitted the report that the offences punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are non-cognizable and bailable, law will not permit to file appeal challenging judgment of acquittal before the District and Sessions Court. 8. Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that; 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 a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable 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.]" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 9. In view of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C, it is clear that the appeal lies against the judgment of acquittal in cognizable and non- bailable offences, before the Court of Sessions. However, the State has preferred the appeal before the Court of Sessions, which is not sustainable under law. The learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in non-cognizable and bailable offences. However, the first appellate Court has entertained the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court as to the release of M.O.1, which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.189/2013 dated 03.07.2014 is set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51445 CRL.A No. 670 of 2014 iii) The order passed by the JMFC (IV-Court), Mangalore in C.C No.4626/2009 dated 27.11.2012 is confirmed. iv) Registry is directed to send the copy of this order along with Trial Court records to the trial Court for taking necessary action to release the amount in favour of the appellants as per the order passed by the trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41