IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 61" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALE
CRIMINAL APPEAL 73 OF
BETWEEN: A
K.H. Ganesh Rao
S/0 K.K. Maheshwarappa ._
Age: Major OCCZ Business
R/0 Haiiyooru Aryerakeri
Shikaripura town ;
TaIukaSh1karj.pura 1
District Shi:.11«9.ga-_ _, Appeilant
my fleas. ,)
AND A A A A
H. Cropal , ~ -
Sv;"é)_ Hu»;*}1a.pp"a-A E3h_£1fidaI'i
* AC'I1i4c1{'=é'é'2': 1"ner(:he1nt.
2 ' ,VR'/.0 CT§_Vi1"c)1*a.1de1:_a1{eri
A w Sh i1{a.15i;31L:rei:~ town
"Taiuk S}iika;1ripL1ra
D1strict.'Sh*im0ga Respondent
‘{–Respr:mdent absent}
Criminal Appeai filed 11/8. 378 (4) <:r.p.<:. praying
' Vfto aside the order dated Y/1.2009 passed by the
'' –7Sessim'1s Judge 1 Fast Track Court. Shimoga in Cr1.A.
No.1 E 1/ 2006. ':he1"e.by allowing the appeal and setting
aside iflhe order of ecmvi(':f:,icn': and sentence dated
6.10.2006 in CC. N0.3O8/2005 passed by the Civil
Judge {:}I'.1.)1'}} 2:111d Ji\/EFCE. Shika1rip1.3ra.
mwwv
Crl.A. No.l73/2009 Coming on for dictating the
order, this day, the court delivered the following:
ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL
This appeal is filed under Sec.3'78[4l} of Crr.j§3;–C. by
the Complainant in C.C. No.308/2005 on flthe
learned Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.] and
District Shimoga [hereinafter r1eferred;t0__ as
for short}. The respondent hereinfix-'ho was Atheiiaojerisedrarp
in the said criminal case, to by the
Trial Court for the B8 A Negotiable
Instruments Act ['N.IA.l.rAet'–.for.Vshort} Judgment and
Order' Aggrieved by the
same trh'e.__41'esvpondentaagéoused preferred Criminal Appeal
1*,/2006" the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
'_'1"*r.aek_ "C'or.i'1°~1:.__-I, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as
' '''}.xppeliatéIp: The Appellate Court, by its impugned
and Order passed in the said appeal allowed
said appeal of the accused, reversed the judgment
ligand order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court and tl'1e'reby ac:q1.1itt.ed the respondent. W accused,
of the said ofl'ei'1ce. 'l'l1ere'fore, the Corxxplainant has
awe"
Court’ in 31 case instit,L1ted ‘upon police report?’
Further, Sec.378 (4) Cr.P.C provides f4(),IV’V”-.E”E’l”I}__
appeal to the High Court, with the
the High COL11’t. against ‘such an”_f”?1,e_’
acquittal’ found in’ sp1b~ser:_.l”[4)
Cr.P.C refer to the aeqtfittéti — by
the ‘original or cLp_pellaté”:CQtlf:’_es rliehtiolled in
Clause [b] of he SeC.378 and
therefore: the _’a,pp.eaVl:s’.fflled by the
complainants
(:ha1§’1&:11gie11gll’the4″”i§c>fi*eey£r;e.ss’ of t.he respective
.o’1t”d:31js”;3f éic.q1;i;ti.al.pas’s’ed”in respective appeals
: ‘the’V’:”-ryespective’ ‘Sessions Courts are
rria..ipntai11’able.§’ ,\
lfii} {£1 sections (2) and (4) of Sec.378 of
l the ‘such an order of acquittal’
a ~i;1s:e”d. and the word ‘such’ refers to the
I1é1t,t:.’;*c~§5′(3t’ the order of aeqtlittal in question and
p be taken to mean an order of acquittal
1′”efe1’red to in SeC.378(1) (b) 1.63., an order of
22u’:qt:it..ta.I passed by any Court other than High
C{)1.n*t. in exercise cf ‘either original or appellate
‘_jur’isdic’tion” and therefore 2111 appeal against
(:>1″cic–2:’ of 2-1<:quit41.aI passed in appeal by the
(_….s'"'"*~—-~v-w–
Aplnellate Court mainlaillable under
Se(“.378[4) of Cr.P.C.
6. As against the above said ‘
Eeamed. advocates for the_…..appe1_’iéint.s;_’;V»
Madhavachar, the learned
responden1–aoeused in N6′.9_0E’s/u2€)_{)’£3_:”strongly”VL’
contended mat”, the worrls V:,l?*oV}r.«_o:ra.._orfijir1aI._.ofiiiappellate
order Q 1.. an acquitiaf” Viflwh in See 378{1){b)
do not f’i1″.1.ci.vth eivr_ (4) of Sec.378
Cr.P.C algxd ‘ only an order
passed “”” wiry jurisdiction is made
appeerV1ué;’.o1t: (4) Cr.P.C and hence the
present 21f5pg%a1sv” ehalierlging the correctness of the
res’pVecf»–tf§’w”” orc1e1*s%of’ aeq_u.it’t.al passed by the respective
an €H£«i41′.’€3 ” (1t:1,1rt.s in the eotive a eals are not
ma.i_nt.2;ir’1a¥f§1c%. In support’ of his eomentions he has
: p1eaeeef.’.1’e1ia11Ce on the order of Cmordinate Bench of this
‘~C-2:15: dt. 3.6.2009 passed in Cr1.A No.142/2009 wherein
‘ ” the very sisa:r1_<_t question of;ma1ini:ainabi1ity of appeal from
an order of a.c1q_L.:it;1.al passscrcl by the appellate Court was
eonside1'e(:E by the 1ea:*11e(ii Si1'1g1e Jm'ige..
€%
7'. Section 378 Cr.P.C which provides for an
appea} against an order of ac:qui1:1:al reads u1"1'dér_:'"–_
S.378. Appeal in case of acquittai 2(1).-Ar V'
otherwise provided in sL;b–sect.i0r1v'~.I2],'"=.anci
subject. to the provisirms of su_b¥séC.ti(5ns._(3}*ar1d,T f
{5} ~
(a)1:’he District. blrany
case, direcf gtihe _«”b’F5:u’b:ljc s’}?r0se(‘:iViAt0r to
p1’esea’1t an afjpfzal of Session
from _an_ ordé’1*”‘<if': éit:r;;}1i'rt}§1l Ipiarssed by a
Asf'éi"Li<§gnizab1e and
1i:)ngba;i1ab1e 4dff¢311(ic;.r'
(b) may, in any
” «._:L§1:5rc:,’ Pub}ic: Prosecutor to
1.0 the High Court from
em or appellate order of an
“~a1§:.(fL:i.1′}1′,al passed by any Couri, other than
A Court (1101. being an order under
(21) or an order of acquittal passed
” . by {Iris Court. of Session in revision]
A (2) if such an c)rc:}e1~ of actqultiial is passed in
any case in which the offence has been
i11vc>.st’.iggatc>d by the Deihi Special Police
PZst’.231bI.ish.me111. (j’.()1’1St’.i1’111″(;’.€1 under the Delhi
S1:.)e(‘tiaI P()ii(,’.E’. Est:abIis.hmc-ant Act. 1946 [25 of
,.~..r°”°’—»—-*-»=~
1946}, or by any otlier agency empowered to
1’nai<e iirvestigaticm. into an offence under any
Central Act other than this code, [the
Government may, subject to the prox-fEsi0ris..j:df;_.v
subsection (3), also direct
P1'0se(:ut0r to present: an g*;j5pe'al. 3
{a} to the Court 0f;S_essi0n,l'i7r0111ea-r.1,Q'rder*:
of acquittal passeed'-by a 'Magis?.ra'te in
respect of a. :icc)g..:i'ii.Zable and ..1'iO1'1+
bailable offeiiicelga g l
(b) tQ_t:he_ original or
ler<.:i~s:..1* Qt acauittal passed
""" H i’ ~ljeing;§”cj:cler under clause [a)} or
an VlL:rde.1″‘.<fi? acquittal passed by the
C~0,t1rt. of Session in revision.)
',:'l"\l.('_3¢ tippeal to the High Court under sub-
1 or sub~secti0r1 (2) shall be
§:iit:egi.tai:1<:d except with the leave of the High
~ VC&:»m't;.
{4} If such an order of acquittal is passed in
any case instii:ut,ecl upon complaint and the
High Court, on an applic.ai:i0n made to it by the
cornplainant in this bel’1al.f, grants special leave
is a1:)peal froni the order of acquittal, the
‘
‘V. .
complainaiii. may present SL1(..Th an appeal to the
High COL: rt.
-.-
(5) N0 appiicatioii uncler sub–seeti0n (<13: I01'
the g.ra13t'. of special leave to appeal
order of acquitted shall be entertained
High Court after the expiry of."s'iX-tinenths,
wiiere. the c:<)mp1airiant_ isla p1,ibi_jie1dserVaf1t;'and,T f
sixty days in every other ea_se–, eombp':u'::ed" froth V
the date of that ordez' 'ofzzgtqiiivtéal.' V'
(6) If. in any Theiapplieaiion {ihdver sub-
section (4) for ‘the f’spe’eia1 leave to
appeal iieiéfi a1″§Iei*Vdei” <)i'*ae.qL1iita1" is refused, no
<)i'ciei*" acquittal shall lie
"'u:'1};t1_er' :-3_i,.1Vt3.§"s.e<§t;i_(§i:2"["i_} or under subsection (2)'.
'.J:i:s.;;i,= c;u~é£i{,:1 reading of the Order of Co-
' Aoi"dii1a."'i1r.r T3.e:ri(I11«veiwieihis C()ur'r. in Crl.A. No.14-2/2009 it
s::e.;i1 that the 1ea1"1'1ed Single Judge has
O}Li.S€1"'V('?'{iv":':~"l'1A. the said order that": the words 'original or
.Aqppelia:z':'e order" which are found in C1 (b) of sub See. [1]
A' "def See. 378 Cr.P.C do not find their place in sub See. (4)
-“of it anti Th.€:’1″Cf(‘)1’€. it eaniiei, be held that an appeal lies
to the 1~1i;1″i Cioiirt Ei§;’c1il’1S$T an order of acquiffsal passed
by {he e’ipp1§:»;i$c=’ (3m,zi’1″. Ii” em.1}.d be seen further from
¢:..,_§”‘”””‘)»-M”-x__,_m….
any Central Act other than this Code. an appeal lies: [a]
to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal
passed by a Magistrate in respect. of a (iOgI1lZH,.b’l-‘3’>E1’I1d
non bailable offence and (b) to the High
‘original or appellate’ order of an Jqequit’tc_1i” ”
Court other than a High Court.
10. Thus. it is C1ear_’from the pro’a%_isio’iismo–i” subfl’
sections {1} (b) and (2) (b) o_f___S’e.<_:_.;3_78 t.hat,§1iAvvi9;1ppeal is
provided from an Ordél,ibf.2i'c.qji;iif;t'eilVipéiseed by any Court
other than the_rHi__gh either original
or respect of the case instituted
on sub section (4) of Sec.378
providers'; for appeal against order of acquittal in
» case instituted upon complaint. Though
. Joriginal or appellate order of an acquittal"
arelnotiueed in sub section (4) of SeC.378, the words
A touch an order of ac?qu.1't£al" which are used in sub
Ejection [2] of Sec.378 are used in it [i.e., in S.378(«1l)].
11. As to the meaning of the words ‘such an order
Q/’acquittal’ which are found in SE.1b~S@(‘.l’.iO1’1S {2} 81 (4) of
gmgrww
42,-
Sec.3’78, the learned advocates for the appellants in the
present appeals have placed reliance on the decision of
this Court. in the ease of Chairman, Village Panchaijat.
Nagathihalli vs N Thimmashetty Gowda reportiedl’ .
I956 MYSORE 62{C)_wherein it is laid doxvn’ as” ,
“‘[c) Criminal p.c. (1898), 4S…{l”l._7 (2) (3) ‘
(as amended by Act 26-v_vl4lo’f_>195V5)._ 4 -TfpS”i__1ch:”Van
order of acquittalf’ — SL1b:secti’o.n (3) applies to
order of acquittal«._z”pass_ed;Vj_’hy*=.app~ellate Court
also.
l5a_ra contended by the
learn’e.dllcVo1;1″nsell. petitioner that S. 417
413) applies Vjonlly to original orders of acquittal
not to of acquittal passed by an
” “–CoL1rt. I see no merit in this
ll Section 417 (1) runs thus:
“Subject to the provisions of sub s. (5),
it State Government may. in any case. direct
“the Public ProsecuI’or to present an appeal to
the High Court from an original or appellate
order of acquittal passed by any Court other
than a High Court.”
rm~fm
132
111 sub (2) and (3) of S. 417 the word
“such” is used with mferetice to an order of
a(:q1..iit.ta.}. The words “such an order of
ac:quit1:.a1″ appeariiig in sub (3) can only
refer to the order of acquitztial 1116:-I1ti0r1€:’,(i.VVii:::1″i._V_
sub (1) of S. 41.7. The order of
refm-1-pd to in sub {1} of S. 417 is an’~«.(j’rdeir.VOf’M T ”
acqi.:iit.i;a1 of the origins} or
‘I’11é31′<r£1,)1f(;? there is no f01v"c;e fill' '«
8.d\,*g,1.l1CEQ~Q1 by the ie;1r1’1c3__(.i ccimsei it
(3) is applicable only i_r_1″‘*.x”ri*1i(V§i]
order of zicquitgfai is t&}_1a”t,–..t§f éiii._origih’al C:C)L11″t.
Under these _’r:ias_Vt0 be held
tvhteti –. _ : ”gi:hiVsfi.; ‘1″f}?>\}’i-810111’. ‘ ‘petittion is not
iI.1E?iiI1’1’i:!.i1:’1€:”f)}fiL”._ .’
I-?u_1ft’.i*1__c:ti’..V 9′ ‘t..}=i’c lc~2i1’11€d advocates for the
1’1zi\9@.’ re1ic(:1 1:_p(.>1″1. i’.}i:€ decision of Gujarat
V ‘High “C2g5u.,r’t _iV1′”ivi’.E’1¢:*. case of Mahammadmiya Kalumiya vs.
.1v:r§ijioz1gh::Lé__ bizdarkhan and another reported in 1972
Crl.I;.;J°:.1409 ¥’Jh&’E”{‘tiI} the dc;:c_:is3’0r1 of this Court in the
‘Cash: 01′ (.’.’:}’1ai1’ir12’»111, V 11121,:-gt? P2211”:(:hay2>:t., Nagathihaili vs N
__’?1’him1’i’i;;a SI1L.’fI’E.y (‘}()\x.f(:§e:1 1″c.t’e1″i*<3é(i 10 supra has been
followed 1.)}; §wIig2;1'1 C()E.11"1'. of G11wj2iI'E:1E.. It is observed by the
<'"–'*§%y"\"'""'
15
5;-:pc’ei1’io(‘i in tliai. se(‘1i0n. Ariotiher class is
C(‘)1..1r£.s of Magisi1’e.1.i_<rs. IE. the court of
Sessirms w}"1i(_:1'1 woulci cxe1'eis<'-? powers in case of
a ("(')1'1Vi()ii()}1 by a M2.1g'isi.1"at.e where senteflce
a\,v211'dec1 is appealablc and in ex_ercisir1'g«..'§h.g3se.
p(_)\v<:1r'r_~:. 1"1'1e Sessions C01.11'i' does not eJeaseV:"t()' :;»e–.i
21 (:"<:mri. 'i'11ereE"0r<:, e\»'er1V-'dhfihe;ir1terpreta'tiGr1i"
21dV&1n(".'('?d by Mr.S}'1.e1e1i: iii' thali
c:()n1p}e'1i1'1(mi: sh0:.,11d'V 1?.1_e_i.Ve': filed' ;?gC.qiii'_r}tai
appea} .2.1§_§di1'1s€': the K{.{<:r}L:i1.iiai}V"'~<_mr'Cie'r the
Sessr'_(.)1_'1s Courii.' .<%'1ezi'r.:iiiiiieit,'the xfifdrds "such
an orcier of a_ an ,orciei{ rneritioned in
sI_.a”‘x’i7 –SA<*'tj';1;i<,)i'if:.; {-1]'"-Whi('Iti'1A'"(i)i'{ii'E%I' of acrquittal would
i.._nc.*i1.:(;1ifig§f’ri1;i41″*.355′-. weil as appellate order of
21(:§c§.1.1’iiii’.21}.’=.’E’i’t.er,e’i’carL*,V just as the State has been
–.g.i\»*c’»:”:” .:–:_i :’éVgii1: cu)?” 2.1}’)]:’)ee’tI frr’)n1 an original or
‘cf.}i)p¢3_l§2″1it*H()i”-Sim’ of e:rr(:;n.iii:’a§_. in 2:1 given case a
p_rr».s’:2a1’iV1:3£”a_i.r.’1c’>1″3. and the right of
am.)r.%e_f:1 m:”1i’err(:*(‘i §i}’)(“)E] z1 p1.’i\re;1te party in
%%Mfi
specified i\/ir.S1iciat’s contcnt.ioI1__, if
actc<-;;:pt.c:é(i1. would an1m..u1i: to piacing a sc(;~or1!:1
l'(_'.SiI'i(.'Ii(')1] upon the 1'igl'if:: ofappea.1 corifcrrc.d_"b3;_
Seci"io11 4E7[€-3} which not justiii'c-roi xi't1–'i1c M
1211'1g1.12;1gc used in Stib-SC(',ti<O1'1'-(3) 'rcad vvi.th ".-‘<
sc(3iion:.s (I) and (2). I1 "tj11eir'(:forc'ii»r1ot_:po'S$ib1ié?.Z:
ra.-g .
to £1§{1’€%€.* with the :511!;)m.issioii1_of Mr..’:3n__c1:§1t tiriiati
the woms such an riicciéircif acécitiittal-I occurring
in sui.3~.s.:c(‘ri.ior1V {£3}. i’ei}:.2i'”to…iiiiir-order’ ‘or acquittal
passcd by the “t’r’it_.1iA ‘EI3_oi:iV1:%t These Words
refer io :.:.1′”: orcl-e-:1*v» .oi=” é=i<';q_uit.t.:;1laxpaisscd by any
court ("{i.l'1«-* V" 'a3vI4ii;_§ii' CoLi"*E:——c-'iihcr in exercise
of <':i;ig;'i:.i'é.;:E i.i';risc'i'i€j:'1«ion.01' ";jip'})e1latc jurisdiction.
'.l"i"r:"i';~;..x_x.-*2';-:.»' 1.1%: =vi(a:w"t.2-11$:-§i'i"%;33? a Single Judge of the
VMySo1'<?. ' in Chairman, Village
Pan;¥':'-~r;:;Em.1i 'uFi-'.:_irrirz'1as(?i ty. AIR 1956 Mys 62.
— flI”i-‘1a~r<4':..z._ies;.’)<:1late Court. The
A c'(r:V£_1_vp_1ai"1'1'éz1'"ai. \–K-'(:'.I.'11'I in l."€"ViSiOIi to the High Court
21.__ic’1(“E.-ii. we=1$ held that the rcvisioiiai application
not compcimii, ‘.i”E’1::%1’i:ms:, {2} amd {3} of Scci:ion -417. was, it was
()i,>s~m”v:>; to an order of
a(tq1ii1_i.;1_]. .rc:*Ic1″:'(:r(‘.i it’: in .*~;1.1i.3~.=%c(*I”i()I”1 (1) of Section
4&7. It xms ()1)s<"n»-'r'.<.'1 I'i.1:'1.i. tl"1c order of acquittal
.1'(:fm~
Thcrcfoi-e, the e0ni;.ent’ion that subsection (3) of
Se(‘.’E”i(..’>;: 417 ap}_3Eic.:a_}_31<:2 timiy to a case in vw'h_iCh
the o1"de1' Of'c1('.(]L.1iU,2.i} is passecl by the….(ji*igi11'a§V"'
em1_:'1_ W'E.1S iiegativecrl. With respec-if_ "thezfei-'is. H
e-11m.1g,_§i'1 i1"1di(:ati0n in tI1_e..».},aI1gL_1€ige"vfjyf
SC-)('{.i()}lS (1). (2) arid (3) <)i':,,1Sect:iQ:n 41'?'
with this view. i\/i1'.S§'1e1211 in the cou"rs.e' of hie"
SL1b1'1']iSSi0.i"1 drew my 21'i'r.feé.iriti(311 i-<) tw§)'_=
one of the AHa;.hé:1.b'clCZ1A,-'Hi-£§}'1 °CZ_c)1.1rt"'reporied as
Abchzi E~i2:11im V; "iii;-i1,_(:',–_ 222. That
was 2-1. (ranger WhAi(I}.],:._};'lV&iL.iV.. on a police
report 2§1':i1;(j1;1" riei "2_»1_T"V'-en;1;ilaint and the
IV[‘c}§;’;i€5*S4:{v.1″‘;;:1″E’5,(‘?.”Ci’L)E”3V’i§7’f-DEC ‘”:_i’1″e.: .a(:c_r.used who was
ac*c’;’1v:.itA1″e{I =tEf1″e_a.p;;eI’E’2=:E–e:” Court. A revisionai
$431.)-iii”21i’:iE:;i’i”-.jV;i.e4″i£’i:1é:*’:1 “:30 the High Court. It is
ob\.=.i_<_'i1.1s f','§'.1é1fi'I' ij_Ei£::–. £52:-isc-:r was not Covered by
-Scc_.*i.i(‘:>’1:._«a1’§V7″{i3).”-z:’1$” it was not 2-1 case iristituted
V L:_p_m2_ 2-1 miiip~’.~:=:iii£.. “I’E3<e: <)i_he.r cittctision was of the
C3.fLi}:)I';L«%§.%}(,?…{:()1H'1 i'epo1'I'ec:i 2155 Chinnaswamy V.
S'tia:ei"%_.*vg;x_<.1i.;"z3i_'i'1{'i}'1re. Pi'2;1(::ies1'1. AI R 1962 SC 1788.' in
t'3:__1'e'i'i'..,(*i2:sct also the :mat,E.er originated on police
"ir;__i.?c-2:31i;;z.1ti0i'i and 1101. upmi 21 private complaint.
In. I"If§'i1"E'EE-'I' of i__ft1c;:.’§”‘ e;11’3;e)eai Cmiferred by sub
:+s<5;%(:*i"'ii:” S{;'(Tf,i{)}1 ii-E7 is limited to acquittai
by the (}I”i§_{i1’1&i1 (‘(>11r£_ {>A1’1Iy had arisen for
{i{“i.i’i”i’T’i§i§:i[i()§’1, I”){.f'(.’E112.’-§(‘ in 1’1.(“)l§.C” of the two CELEBS
Llw a::”%,a_:£1’:e..:§ <.'2m= w2:s-; i:i::s:"§'i:11%"<"».('i upon a private
,….;""–m-~».»-
L?)
Co111}_)l;:i_z’1_’i. ‘i’1″m’ tvvo decisions___ do
1’10! lufip M1′.Sht'[>I;’1t.
1.3. (.):”1 (‘dl'(,’.f[.1E 1’c>e;:c’i%11§;gj of the Ofdéi’
ordineltc’. i%(-nT1(‘.h of this C0L.:z’E :’§1’1~.C3r17_fi\.
which is 1-*c1id upon by :m.- 1&1-a1″1″1éC1 nituinsel £126;
I’€SpOI1CE§\]H\;-1(T(_’1.’£S€;TCi in (RE;.A~v..v;51().9C5/2.908 v’itmCOLi1d be’
seen them {]’t(‘):.1;:’h 1.110. 211J:~;<=*1'1L:v _"oI" "L1j1e w(jrds~"'Or1ginai or
appellate (_"')rc1'.er Qf cifi ,;t1¢"cjLa:z.z:%{;:1.I section {4} of
Sec.378 11:15; «i'}gf(L-:_~n :'f1§g')t:i(;+e@}' l3:.g 1v}'1fcu}é2§r};1ed Single Judge,
in the .g«s2'£fi<T} ;_;i':=r.,i:*1}';–.._ 1','r14'€~_{j'.r3j1 L:*;~..sfiizig 01' the words 'such an
ordef of fi§:It::;;..t,z'.{mill? \ra}'ifé:.é_i"1 e-'ms found in sub sections {2}
and {4}uz'j'{ S(f'c.y._f%'?TE% '1:'1';s.1_;¥:"'«:"r"t been (ronsiderecl. Besides
this;~~1-1– E”-3 (ix:-*<:V:.i5ir'2:"j oi thisa (.'mrrr" in the Case of Chairman
E31'-'%"2I]_('}'I2.i\,-'Eli,. é\la:;_3je'.1i1T1ilT}:1Eii vs N Thimma Shetty
:G'c_;vuf(“} to sup1’a was not
bf0ug.}’i{_ Mi Hw 1mi’i<'1' of she it?a1’r1t’.(‘I Single Judge when
V nthuis \}*(}>_s_’jv* (‘§L..I.(‘”f£I’.i€)}’1 as to m2-1i§;”11;:2’=1i.:12=tbility of an appeal
“‘.f1″()m an :>’r<"§:==r" of :2:<';;z.:ili:,1i pe2'1:5s<'i in appeal was
' " C()I1Sid('?}"'('{f§ a
.§.='§. '3'i'w ;:-:}'.)m.–'<~ <.':%:;é:«;<;.=:*x-';;;.i'i;’1:¢:; wc1′(:~ made by the
ieartuird -E-%§z:;3;E_<» »}:.z<§__;_{{' <3?" ?E"2§:~; (3m.s1'z in 1;hc (.?i:1-SE'. of
L7
Chairmcm. \~'z'Hc'.'L'(;c? Pcu'zc*I'2aycI.{.. Nczgczihillalli us N Thimma
Shelly ("'}oz:rc1o \vE'aiELf (."()1"1Si(.IC1'iI'1§.{ the provisions of
8630.417 (1) 2.-mcsl {3} of €j,',r.P.('3 1898 {old Code) are
identicfsi with Ij}'I(':'. ];)rovisi<..ms of sub sectionsfi/L),$ir$d {4)
of C'r.P.(i. 1§37'.'3 [1'}<.*w (}?do).
L5′ I 1′<'3s;_)<-t’i1″;g’icsr Ju(oigg13rt’ si.1i–l cé;sé” offi
ChC1iI’fTICJ’J’?. ‘.-“‘ilIr.zge Pan(3I1ayoiVi;a.:Na;ga£foi’iiaolii’vbs Thimma
Shetty Ci}c_m.=(1.a (AIR .’_vAMysorg_v.62.]%_which has been
followecil by ¥}’1§?_ Hi;_{1″I’_.C.(,§.1i~1T1. ‘Vin 1972 C1’l.L.J
14091;…’}’)ri)I”E”; . V19{v%:z”‘(}’1:1,f4€s'(.3 4R3: ‘s-1.1j)i’;L if the words ‘such an
order Q}”s..;oi.é::;ziiEt2a?.§_’ 2;;11’C fmmd in both the sub–
se»::’i*::jc:)a’i;.’s {Li} 63¢”{:r”§s}v___(}_f.bécv_:§7E__’. arc’ hcld to mean an order
‘ ..ac:s–:1p;.1éoi’:’:sf”Vpa1.ss<':ci_ in <1x<~.1'{_'isc~. of 'either' original or
.i3J,I3'}5E3U.C1':'.'r_-3:'ffi}'is*€(1i('Iiri)I'l'. 11' f11cs\.=.»’s:_a that ord-er of acquittal
passe?(‘i’«})y <_rit'::}'1s31" *£'.i"1;=;-:E:–r<i ;.1g2.1i.;1sI' E3}: §1'2\rk’ir1g provisions of sub
% s<:*cti<'m {:13 of' sm~.:;a7s C__?::I'.<f.",
1.6 '?'}':<* definition :1? 'Criminal Appeal' has been
rei'er1':’3si{:’1a’>;o’a-xE 1);: 111:: (ic’)–o1″c.1i3’1ate Bench of
,…..r–~w»«
this Coimz in ‘aim :*{.E:’-*1″ 1’1″; C__T.;’I.A N(_).142/2009 referred to
supra. (‘m (‘am-r’i”i.11 1’c’a<'ii1'}g,;§ of Section ?;j"'0f-«.V.'fhe
KarI1ata-ikzi I—-I_i_<.g'i1 C(.)11i'i. AC1 I. 961 it eouid b-e::'see.irTi
sub se,<%tiu1'; (2) of se.<'*'i:i<)n 2 dc-3fiI'i"c:t.:–.fcr5imiiIiCt~!_a13peciE-f,
sub senz}’ b’em;§: in force,
lies to {P1 e E Iig}’1 (f3oi:1″i ‘decree or order,
made by :3 .i.1_’1:V.fAt1’V1e exercise of its
‘originaf appeal is defined as
“an a:;5;Jee3-tii*a.a5f}’1:i<:1"iL' '1n_"1"cie"1" any iajw for the time being in
force, Iia*:<.:»}L 4%’ S-.3!i’?.i)()i'(.1i§1″1é-Eli(7 civil (tour? in the exercise
= of ‘&i.p})é’i>{.E{zI{e’ <.?iU-1'1 M,' E :I"is£:rz–1.1.’. *fi;_*s€” éappezgzil’ ‘c’Eli”:d ‘second appeal’ as
d.eefi.ne{§'”i:’::”n..’h’-‘a:’ Sui’; ,’:’>’r;’.*-:¢.§.i0r1&.~.; (2); {I3} (6) of Section 2 of
. ‘S
K.’
‘I{a;*:ia1:;;im. 5-mg: i:::%<;m;~: rm 2:35;. 1.1-my are so defined
u '"with 2.1 'x.'§:"=,."a.-' ii; :_§i::s{i1_';'.<-_{11.issE': 'z..:;4:h £i’:e1w__’» ia rm f'”~;£:’?pé11’éi1’l(‘,’ §f}i'()ViSiOI’i in the
Code mi” {‘.’;”é::i§.z”mi P:'<_:s<:1’1 £00 in the
¢m©ww«
Code of Civil Procedure, providing for “Second Appeal
from an “order in appeal”, passed by a Criminal Court
in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, subwseyciions
(1)(b) & (2) (b) of Sec.3’78 Cl’.P.C. provide
appeal against an order of acquittal, -,
by any Court, other than the hi
the cases instituted upon Police report. lf»’iii1’e.deiin;ition_’°.
of ‘Criminal appeal’ as defii1eVd’=u’i1der 2E2) of the
Karnataka High Couri;..V:Act’l__ ‘;’~V.isi’tal:en in restricted
sense to mean only avn~–ap.peal- frv=orn.’a1i’o,ider passed by a
subordina’teViiCriri§i1’nall’~.Court.._'”in exercise of its ‘original
criminal_jurisdibti€onfigtlieé..-criminal appeals which are
provided for_luVI1der’*.su’|o~sections (1) (b) and 2 (b) of
C’r,.P.Cl.H lw’c)’t:lld fall outside ihis definition and as
sugcllc; be entertained by this Court.
18.’ .vlA.:’*’l’Aherei’ore, with great respect to the learned
Singledudge of Cowordinate Bench of this Court. I am of
C “‘th’e~considered opinion that by virtue of the definition of
“criminal appeal’ found in Sec.2[2) of the Karnataka
High Court. Act 196}, ii: can not be said that an appeal
to the Higli Court. gig:-iiiisi an order oi’ Et(‘(‘1L.ill’l”E1l passed
f”
2,3
H()r1’bI(‘ f’f3i.1;.}:'<'11'1u1″i §.”1;.1$ (:Ei)s(?I’\-‘@(i in the case of
Associateé ifemeni Co., Ltd., Vs Keshavancznd zféported
in ILR 19§8 KA.R 185?’ {C} 21:; 1tr1(i<)I':
“[c} éiriminal Procedure Code 3
Act N612 sf 1974) – Section»..386.’_ – vP6w4erS.o_:) f
Appeiiaia Court ané (>3pufj;:ts_ PAowe’1–‘s»._L_of__T f
Revisicm.
Heid: Appeliate jurisiiififipn is.VcQ–exténsVixf锑wiih
Originafi Ccmrts juriS€3i.’i’_<St".ipfl~._».£-IS 1'0r___ap]::3raisal
dnci 2.'i.§_.}p1'c.i:<':i2-1%'i{_ c§>.%iVEit21″1ri}c.-5’gand reaching
fi:’ac1é1:;_;§;~; CHI Em.-is mg: A’;E3;’>’e-‘IE–2.r~,1’.”i151cii1T1j cI1t’@red by the
~”1″‘1*’i’;51 1- “T135; 2 .1 1%}: ” * si<'}r';;5-£1";§'1'1"risdi(%tTion belongs to
'E'a_1,1}"'3(;i"=.~'i-f*4%s::.Ef'E$L'~.,_V%LZ.E'£$'{];!C'1'i{}.1'I of 21 superior Court.
Whiie»axéémi's:i1:g"fievisiional Powers the court
.1135 £50 .,ém2Vfine '-to. t§1e iegality and propriety of
ffie .j_findi:V-§7g;s——–:::«r:c§ ais«:.<_} w§_'1c:1::hc:'r the subordinate
r:_()'L..11'*'.:._1"s;;s;; 'mp!' i1rs{.:1'§'xxri1.}1i13 the bounds of its
A 3V"1'..:«§"_i~se;<_'§i':;':"§'{;a': §u<_'1:.u.ii1'z_;;_: ';3"1('.' quc»:stTi01'1 whether the
C?r3£1;'.?.~:' }'1:as'; fa-1iEcg>;.:;”sa: t’I’2.2:1%. EEK’ I,<.'z»21'11:éc:l Singie Judge has
e(;:.1:.::':'::-=:_~i.};=-11’ti g><swL:rs with revisional
pc)wg>a’=’;-:1 ;m:”1 has been overlooked.
11. E4; i.;’%€c_’ I.::1 t’}’}2.1’£’ appellate
r”_~(—-s.d'”°\…»”
Zir
_ju1’is+i’i is <."um;1r;=ii:~_e.ii-1" wiih 0ri§.{ina.l <:0u;'t'S
vE'1.i¥"§."w'.€§ii"Ei(ii"i ;.'i:.a for é.%§.')}.Z1§'£-1i.'~$£-3] and 2i.p;3r<:é(:iati.o'n_
oi" (-w,.'%{5(_'i':i'£," ;.'z.1':(i ri=;.1<_'*I1i1'2;§ I"iiii'.Ii1i_gs_s on
E1pp("§1a_ii<' {f<i1.:1"! is £2':-=-*»c=2 to reac.h'7.__its jfoW'i1' —
(t1’1:_”E:::’~ei:<:i'1 on {"'\"i('i('ll('(' mm'2'-:a.1}'1nicled"by Van}?
ffi11<"Ii1"':;g <"i'iH'1'c_:{'I bx,-' Hit" "i"'I*i::«1.§ Cf'oi.z'i'tj'»._Ref\%isiciz–a1°1T'
power iii: EEEE.' ()H'1E'1' 1ji§1..§"_1_{.1 l)c$1<');'ig lo €s'u'p;ory'iso_J:y i
j1i1"i:~€{§i<*§i(_)1"i of 2: .&;':.".'1'i'i"-?..':'.."".ii'»§(o)r C)TO1,i'I'i;–.V-I z'):W'l1i1€
exeroigirzg revisionai&..;i'ox£?§:$VV"'the dour: ~'1V'1as to
confirm to the"~legai;$1;yf,Variki-Vi:':p§"0priety of the
findingfi ,;3§id «'-'1.i.:=:'..9:.. " 'Lsubordinate
Court its<:«~.if bounds of its
juriscii:3:io5;:sv- "lV'_;'1€V'it:1V(ii__iVi'i~;:§V t"i"1€."' .q:.1_::".s:s'{1'()i3 whether' the
CQ;_:"t"';'ei;'.:=a:.V_I}ii1.§i{? VI_” «£_’_X€.)If(§’iS(? the jurisdiction
:’–.’*”t-ésa1£_*€§’§i_–; if”71’E14)é”I”§E’1 iii.’-;-‘ <'iif"f"i:1'<*i'1(:e between the
'flrvci jiEf'§55'{'§i5'§:ié..31'1E~',.'_ixffi'.f*'§i%§')I]{.'. ii': is quite reai and
h'¢!.'.~Z""".,§'E<'a"2'«_'V "i_iéé{:*,()f'1':-é"=* wolf 1"{:L'tog1'1i7:€d in legai
[J'1A'(,\\,-'§'§E:'i'i'~%:-.~iv" _
Keraia vs. K.M. (Sharia Abdulla 8:
« CG:_§”».’jJ”‘:’;f..?3£.’:…7{3I.ii’i’. I’1z:’is’-; I’1i§.:}’iIi;_§1″1’I’€d the difference
b_’ei.1.r«?<».:€:.'*i1 §§"1t"' f'.\-Vi} __§1.ii'i:%;(§.i<'r1ioiis in the following
" W_i'§1'"<' E fa :
‘« MI’1’1{‘§’€’ i:-~; §’ii'”i <:s…~_~;;::’:i.i_ giiiiti ;’-i 1′{.?\’ifri§.(.>Ii. ‘§’1″2i’ (iisi..in<':i'ioi1 is based
on iiii'%%=*zi=ii<_*<_%s: iiiipiivét 5.1: f,l'1£: said two
€:'.}si.[")i"{.'F%:'-a§t}ii?:'. An appeai is a continuation of the
pI'0Cfi%3€§§.§ig§; in effect the entire proceedings
f»m