- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16621 CRL.A No. 100095 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100095 OF 2019 (A-) BETWEEN: M/S. GURU RAJENDRA MINERALS TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SATYANARAYANA NILAYA, 100 BED HOSPITAL ROAD, HOSAPETE- 583201, BALLARI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA- NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SRI. SUBRAMANYA SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD., OLD BATHRI ROAD, HAVAMBHAVI, BALLARI- 583101. 2. BHASKAR NAIDU MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SRI. SUBRAMANYA SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD., OLD BATHRI ROAD, HAVAMBHAVI, BALLARI -583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISH M.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE IN C.C.NO.168/2013 (OLD C.C.NO.1652/2012) AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR OFFENCES U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND AWARD SUITABLE COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT HEREIN, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16621 CRL.A No. 100095 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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:16621 CRL.A No. 100095 of 2019 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 13.01.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16621 CRL.A No. 100095 of 2019 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 PJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 33