- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI ABBAS S/O SADU BYARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.2-T-51/4 SHAMMAS MANZIL, DAYAMBU HOUSE S.H. NAGAR, KANNUR MANGALORE, D.K.- 575 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHA G, ADV., FOR SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.) AND: 1. MOHAMMED JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O ABOOBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT MULIHITLU, YEMMEKERE BOLAR, MANGALURU - 575 001. 2. MOHAMMED IMRAN S/O ABOOBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MULIHITHLU, YEMMEKERE BOLARA, MANGALURU - 575 001. 3. MR. AYAZ S/O ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT GADIYARA MANE PARAMOGARU POST BANTWALA - 574 241. 4. MRS. SUMAYYA D/O ABOOBAKKAR Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 AGED 40 YEARS R/AT MULIHITHLU, YEMMEKERE BOLARA, MANGALURU - 575 001. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.476/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.06.2025 IN C.C.NO.1183/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC MANGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL.A.NO.476/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Complainant is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.476/2025 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Since the order impugned was passed without issuing notice to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 respondents, I am of the opinion that notice in this petition to the respondents would not be necessary. 3 Facts leading to filing of this revision petition for the purpose of disposal of this petition narrated briefly are, respondent nos.1 to 4 herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 114 read with 34 IPC and they were tried for the said offences in CC.No.1183/2020 by III JMFC Court, Mangaluru. Vide the judgment and order dated 09.06.2025 passed in CC.No.1183/2020, the Trial Court had acquitted respondent nos.1 to 4 herein of the charge-sheeted offences and aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein who is the defacto complainant had filed Crl.A.No.476/2025 before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, along with IA.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay of 84 days caused in filing the appeal. 4 The Appellate Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA.No.1 on the ground that no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay, and consequently, dismissed the criminal appeal. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2025 passed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.476/2025, the defacto complainant is before this Court. 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that appeal filed by the petitioner was under Section 372 of Cr.PC. No period of limitation is provided under the statute for filing an appeal under Section 372 Cr.PC. Inadvertently, IA.No.1 was filed along with the criminal appeal to condone the delay caused in filing the criminal appeal. The Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 6 Section 372 of Cr.PC reads as under: "372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force: PROVIDED that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court." 7. The proviso to the said Section which has come into effect from 31.12.2009 provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. 8. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the appeal against the order of conviction from the Trial Court would lie to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, D.K. Mangaluru. Section 372 of Cr.PC does not provide for any period of limitation for filing the appeal, nor there is any provision under the Limitation Act prescribing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC by the victim. 10. The Division Bench of High Court of Bombay placing reliance on the judgment passed by various other High Courts, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 has held in the case of RANJANA SHANTILAL SURYAWANSHI VS JAIPRAKASH TULSIRAM GUPTA - 2020 CrLJ 3576, that there is no limitation provided under the statute for filing an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC by the victim. In the said case, it was also held that victim includes guardian or legal heir. 11. Even otherwise, IA.No.1 was filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 84 days caused in filing the appeal. In my considered opinion, the said delay was satisfactorily explained in the affidavit which was filed in support of the prayer made in the application. The Appellate Court was, therefore, not justified in dismissing IA.No.1 filed in Crl.A.No.476/2025 with a prayer to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal, and consequently also dismissing the appeal. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 12. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.476/2025 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, is set aside, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3454 CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025 the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK