- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1681 OF 2016 (A) BETWEEN: M/S. MAMATHA FINANCIERS ENTERPRISES (R), REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. M. MADAIAH, S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, Digitally signed by J.M.LANE, 5TH CROSS, SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S BALEPET, Location: High BANGALORE – 560 053. Court of Karnataka …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. P. KALLESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAJEEV CHANDAN, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR S/O. M. MANJU N. CHANDAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL NEW SAGAR COMFORTS & BANQUETS, NO.576/8, 11TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 054. AND ALSO RESIDING AT: NO.27/3, 3RD MAIN, 3RD A CROSS, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMI KANTH K., ADVOCATE) ---- THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.08.2016, PASSED BY THE XLII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY, IN C.C.NO.29595/2014, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016

HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT 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 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.” 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 17.08.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1681 OF 2016 (A) BETWEEN: M/S. MAMATHA FINANCIERS ENTERPRISES (R), REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. M. MADAIAH, S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, Digitally signed by J.M.LANE, 5TH CROSS, SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S BALEPET, Location: High BANGALORE – 560 053. Court of Karnataka …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. P. KALLESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAJEEV CHANDAN, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR S/O. M. MANJU N. CHANDAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL NEW SAGAR COMFORTS & BANQUETS, NO.576/8, 11TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 054. AND ALSO RESIDING AT: NO.27/3, 3RD MAIN, 3RD A CROSS, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMI KANTH K., ADVOCATE) ---- THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.08.2016, PASSED BY THE XLII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY, IN C.C.NO.29595/2014, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016

HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT 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 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.” 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 17.08.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35387 CRL.A No. 1681 of 2016 HC-KAR 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 purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12