- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2616 OF 2025 (C) BETWEEN: SRI ANAND KOTRESHWAR SITHALE S/O KOTRESHWAR SITHALE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DIRECTOR (FORMER) R/AT NO. 007, SLV RAJDRIVA APARTMENT, 19TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 38TH CROSS, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. &APPELLANT (BY SMT. DEEPA J, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 068. &RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 415(2) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.97/2024 BY THE SPL.COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.3 OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in C.C.No.97/2024 dated 26.09.2024 which is confirmed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1693/2024 dated 22.11.2025. 2. The office has raised objection that this appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The office has also noted that the criminal revision petition may be preferred. Hence, the office objection is upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that permission may be granted to the appellant to prefer criminal revision petition against the judgment passed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025 the First Appellate Court by availing the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Considering the submission of the appellant's counsel, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the appellant to take appropriate legal steps against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant is permitted to avail the benefit under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. (iii) The Office is directed to return copy of the judgments to the appellant. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK