- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1919 OF 2021 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, CHIKKMAGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) AND: 1. DINESH.C.M S/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, WORKING AS AUTO DRIVER, R/AT CHIKKA GOUJA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101. 2. REHAMAN HUSSAIN S/O ASHRAD AAHAAB, OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.KA-18-B-3850, NEAR K.E.B. OFFICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER ODF ACQUITTAL DATED 21.09.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.C.J.M COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.400/2014 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 338, 337, 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 113 AND 194 AND 146 R/W 196 OF IMV ACT AND ETC. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. I.A.No.1/2021 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 430 days in filing this appeal. 2. This application is supported with the affidavit of Anjali Devi, the Deputy Director of Prosecution, in which it is stated that the judgment was passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagalur in CC.No.400/2014 on 21.09.2019 and the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor had filed the application to get the copy of the judgment on 23.09.2019 and had received the judgment copy on 22.10.2019 and thereafter, he gave his opinion on 23.10.2019 and sent the same to the Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division. The said Law Officer had received the file on 08.11.2019 and gave his opinion on 16.11.2019 and sent it to the Director of Prosecution, Bengaluru on 16.05.2020. The last date for filing of the appeal was on 26.01.2020. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 3. Further, it is stated that Sri. R. Badrinath, the Deputy Director of Prosecution, who was also working as public prosecutor gave his opinion on 04.08.2020 and has also opined that it was a fit case to file an appeal and accordingly the file was sent to this Court on 07.08.2020. 4. It is also stated that as the State has got a very good case on merits and point of law, there is a every likelihood of succeeding before this Court. As such, the delay is bona fide and unintentional and if the delay is not condoned, the State will be put to substantial injury and on the other hand, no harm and injustice would be caused to the respondent. On these grounds, the appellant sought to allow I.A.No.1/2021. 5. This Court on 04.12.2025 has passed the following order: "This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal after lapse of 430 days. In the affidavit of Anjali Devi, Deputy Director of Prosecution, it is stated that the Assistant Public Prosecutor received the copy of the judgment on 22.10.2019 and he has given his opinion on 23.10.2019 and sent to the Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division. The Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division received the file on 08.11.2019 and has given his opinion on 16.11.2019 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 and sent to the Director of Prosecution, Bangalore. The file received on 16.05.2020. In view of the provision under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Director of Prosecution or the Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division, is not required to prefer appeal. However, in the affidavit, it is stated as above. Hence, the appellant is directed to submit their clarification as to whether the Law Officer (Senior), Mangaluru Division and the Director of Prosecution, Bangalore is required to prefer the appeal against the judgment of acquittal. At the request of learned High Court Government Pleader, list the matter for 'Arguments' finally on 15.12.2025." 6. The Director in-charge of Department of Prosecution and Government Litigations, Bengaluru has submitted his report as under: "Subject: "Submission of Report in Criminal Appeal No.1919/2021". Reference: " As per direction of Hon'ble Court dated: 04/12/2025". ****** With reference to the above subject, it is humbly submitted that, the State Government has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 filed this Criminal Appeal No: 1919/2021 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the Judgement of Acquittal dated 21/09/2019 passed in C.C.No: 400/2014 by Hon'ble First Additional C.J and JMFC Court, Chikkamagaluru. It is submitted that, this Hon'ble High Court has sought clarification as to whether the Law Officer (Senior), Mangalore Division and the Director of Prosecution, Bengaluru is required to prefer an appeal against the judgement of acquittal in view of the provision under section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure It is submitted that, in C.C. No: 400/2014 the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and sections 113, 194, 196 read with 196 of Motor Vehicle Act as well. It is further submitted that, the offence punishable under section 304(A) is classified as a cognizable and bailable offence as per the first schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908. The extract of the first schedule is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as annexure-A It is humbly submitted that, to prefer an appeal against the judgement of acquittal passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 when the offences are cognizable and bailable in nature, the provisions contained in section 378(1)(b) would be applied. Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced herewith. 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 Magistrate in respect of a cognisable 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] It is humbly submitted that, on careful reading of the above section it is clear that, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 - against an order passed by jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate in respect of offences which are cognizable and non-bailable in nature appeal to be presented before the Sessions Court by the Public Prosecutor upon direction by the District Magistrate as stated in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code - against an order not being an order under clause (a) appeal to be presented before the Hon'ble High Court by the Public Prosecutor upon direction by the Government as stated in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that, as per the Government Order ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ME:381:¦¦E:2007, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 25£Éà ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï 2007, the Law officer (Senior) has to take decisions to prefer an appeal in cases in which punishment is upto 07 years and the Director of Prosecutions has to take decisions to prefer an appeal in cases in which punishment is up to 10 years and hence, The then Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigations has sent the file to the State Public Prosecutor to present this appeal before this Hon'ble High Court. The copy of the above said order dated 25/09/2007 is produced - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court as Annexure-B It is further submitted that, I the undersigned is submitting herewith clarification as stated above as per the direction of this Hon'ble High Court dated 04/12/2025." 7. It is seen that as per the letter addressed by the Director, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigations, Bengaluru, the Law Officer (senior) has to take a call to prefer an appeal in cases in which the punishment is upto 7 years and the Director of Prosecution has to take a call to prefer an appeal in which punishment is upto 10 years. 8. In the case on hand, it is stated in the affidavit that the Law Officer, (Senior) Mangaluru Division has received the file on 08.11.2019 and gave his opinion on 16.11.2019. Though the Law Officer (Senior), Mangalore Division has given his opinion on 16.11.2019, this appeal was not filed till 23.03.2021. Thus, the prosecution has failed to place sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 430 days in preferring this appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3667 CRL.A No. 1919 of 2021 ORDER I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 430 days in filing this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35