Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/1555/2016 of M/S UNIWORLD LOGISTRICS PVT. LTD., Vs M/S PORUS EQUIPMENTS PVT. LIMITED on 13 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35377 CRL.A No. 1555 of 2016 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. 1555 OF 2016 ( A ) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. UNIWORLD LOGISTRICS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.225, S. T. BED
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. 1555 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. UNIWORLD LOGISTRICS
PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.225, S. T. BED EXTENSION,
5TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE – 560 034.
REPRESENED BY ITS
SENIOR MANAGER-ACCOUNTS,
MRS. RENUKA LAKSHMI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. L. SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. PORUS EQUIPMENTS
PVT. LIMITED,
NO.105, UTTARI ROAD,
OFF: KANAKAPURA ROAD,
KAGALIPURA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
MR. GEORGE THOMAS,
MR. MATHEW,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
PRESENTLY
RAMANAGARA DISTIRCT.
2.
MR. GEORGE THOMAS
DIRECTOR,
M/S. PORUS EQUIPMENTS
(P) LIMITED,
NO.105, UTTARI ROAD,
OFF: KANAKAPURA ROAD,
KAGALIPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
BANGALORE – 560 082.
3.
MR. MATHEW
DIRECTOR,
M/S PORUS EQUIPMENTS
(P) LIMITED,
NO.105, UTTARI ROAD,
OFF: KANAKAPURA ROAD,
KAGALIPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
BANGALORE – 560 082.
…RESPONDENTS
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.05.2016, PASSED BY THE XXI
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.23471/2011, ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
NEGOTIABLE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320
HC-KAR
Section 372 and need not advert to sub- section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”
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.
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.: 2