- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3854 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. J.B. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE BUUCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.NO.43, 1ST CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, ABBIGERE POST, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 090. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA. A, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA CITY, REP BY S.P.P ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) R Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON MEMO DATED 12.02.2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.A.NO.92/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 420, 467, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to call for the records and set-aside the impugned order passed on memo dated 12-02-2026 and consequently quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Appeal.No.92/2025, for the offence punishable U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. pending on the file of 1st ADDL District & Sessions Judge at Mandya, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. Hanumanthappa A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner finds himself entangled in criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the Police laid a charge sheet, which culminated in registration of C.C. No.22/2014 before the competent Court. The matter thereafter traversed the entire spectrum of criminal adjudication, and upon a full- fledged trial, the concerned Court, by judgment dated 27.03.2025, acquitted the petitioner of all charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred an appeal before the Court of Session. 4. It is this appeal that has driven the petitioner to the doors of this Court, raising a singular contention: that the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner, who granted sanction for preferring the appeal, lacked - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 competence in law, and that such sanction ought to have emanated only from the State Government. 5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would, however, stoutly repel the contention. It is his submission that Section 419(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita unequivocally vests the power in the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal before the Court of Session against an order of acquittal. It is only where the appeal lies to the High Court that the authority would rest with the State Government. The provision reads as follows: "419(1)(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;" Section 419(1)(a) of the BNSS occupies the field concerning appeals against acquittal. A plain and meaningful reading of the provision leaves no room for ambiguity. The legislature, in its wisdom, has expressly conferred authority upon the District Magistrate to authorize the filing of an appeal before the Court of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 Session against an order of acquittal rendered by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences. The language employed is direct, categorical, and admits of no elasticity for interpretative dilution. 6. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, collapses on the face of the statute itself. The provision stands as a complete answer to the argument canvassed. When the legislative command is explicit, interpretative adventurism must yield to statutory fidelity. Courts cannot read into the provision a restriction that the legislature, consciously or otherwise, has chosen not to impose. 7. In the case at hand, the Deputy Commissioner, acting in the capacity of the District Magistrate, has accorded permission for preferring the appeal against the order of acquittal before the Court of Session. Such exercise of power is squarely traceable to Section 419(1)(a) of the BNSS and is fully within the bounds of statutory competence. No legal infirmity, procedural impropriety, or jurisdictional error can be attributed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27448 CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026 to the said order. The appeal against acquittal is admittedly preferred before the Court of Session and not before this Court. 8. The petitioner’s contention that permission ought to have been granted only by the State is, therefore, fundamentally misconceived and stands rendered unsustainable in the teeth of the statutory provision extracted hereinabove. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8