Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/395/2023 of M/S. ACE ENGINEERING TCHNOLOGIS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S. SNNAP DSIGN TECH LLP on 22 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010104062023 NC: 2026:KHC:37761 CRL.A No. 395 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2023 ( A ) BETWEEN: M/S. ACE ENGINEERING TCHNOLOGIS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ACE ENGINEERING TCHNOLOGIS
(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.25/1B, YARANDAHALLI,
BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL
AREA, HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI LINK ROAD,
BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY
MR. K. S. SHIVASWAMY,
GENERAL MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. V. PINTO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. SNNAP DSIGN TECH. LLP.,
NO.6, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
SARASWATHIPURAM,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
BANGALORE – 560 096.
2.
MR. KARTHIK N.S.,
MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. SNNAP DESIGN TECH. LLP.,
NO.6, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
BANGALORE – 560 096.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROOPESH N.R., ADVOCATE)
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO ADMIT THE
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
28.12.2022, PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXV A.C.M.M. AT
BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.18106/2021. AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND
ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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
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 25.08.2026, 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.
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
NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15