- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43154 CRL.A No. 486 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) AND: 1. SRINIVASA @ SEENA, S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRESENT C/O RAMESH, OPP. GANESHA TEMPLE, AMRUTHAHALLI COLONY, BENGALURU CITY-560 092, PERMANENT: YALGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGILU TALUK, KOLAR, KARNATAKA-563 131. 2. SHANKAR, S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PRESENT VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, LAKSHMINARAYANA ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 092. PERMANENT: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43154 CRL.A No. 486 of 2023 VENKATAPPPA LAYOUT, LAKSHMINARAYANA ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 092. 3. ADARSHA @ ABHI, S/O LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PRESENT NO 1, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, HOODI LAYOUT, AMRUTAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 092, PERMANENT: NO 1, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, HOODI LAYOUT, AMRUTHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 092. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C, PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.12.2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.43/2015, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(A) AND 342 OF IPC AND SECTION 7, 12 AND 16 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43154 CRL.A No. 486 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT ORDER ON IA.I/2024 1. Heard on IA.I/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 270 days in preferring the appeal. 2. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of Acquittal and filed this application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 270 days in filing the appeal. 3. This application is supported with affidavit of Sri L.M.Yelsangikar, the Deputy Director of Prosecution, in which it is stated that, the impugned Judgment and order under challenge, was passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Spl.Case No:43/2015 dated:13.12.2021, the concerned public prosecutor applied for the copy of the Judgment on 28.02.2022 and required to appear on 04.03.2022, to receive the same, which was obtained on 17.03.2022, thus, there is a delay of 90 days for filing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43154 CRL.A No. 486 of 2023 copy application and obtaining the same by the Public Prosecutor. 4. The said Public Prosecutor forwarded his opinion to law officer (Sr.) Bangalore Rural Division, Bangalore, on 21.03.2022, and in turn, the law officer (Sr.) Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, forwarded his opinion to office of the Director of Prosecution on 08.07.2022. which was received on 22.07.2022. thus, there is a delay of 119 days by the law officer (Sr.) Bangalore rural, Bangalore, and the office of deponent sought explanation from the concerned Public Prosecutor and law Officer (Sr.), Bangalore Rural Division, Bangalore, for the delay in sending their opinion. 5. Further it is stated that, Sri. B. Annegowda, Law Officer (Jr.), office of the Director of prosecution, furnished his opinion on 04.11.2022, and forwarded the same to deponent and the deponent holding the case as fit for appeal, forwarded her opinion to the Director of Prosecution on 17.11.2022 and the Director of Prosecution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43154 CRL.A No. 486 of 2023 concurring with the opinion of the deponent, forwarded the entire records to the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bangalore through his order bearing No.DPN:196:BD:2022, Bangaluru, dated 21.11.2022. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing this application. 6. The averments made in the affidavit is not supported with any materials. In the absence of supportive materials, the averments made in affidavit cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to place sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing this appeal. Hence, 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 Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA