Karnataka High Court
Florance Flora Farm vs Ooty Flora on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810
CRL.A No. 662 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2023 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2023
IN CRL.A No. 662/2023
BETWEEN:
1. FLORANCE FLORA FARM
NO.53/54, THIPPUR POST,
SUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 561 204.
REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, MR.A.A. JOHNSON, S/O A.L.ANTONY,
AGED 57 YEARS.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by (BY SRI. PRASANNA D P., ADVOCATE)
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. OOTY FLORA
P-64, CHURCH ROAD, BEDFORD,
COONOOR - 643 101,
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR.JESURAJA BAKTHAN DANIEL.
2. MR.VIJAY LOURDARAJ
AGED 47 YEARS,
C/O JAGADESHWARI AND MR.SURESH RAJ,
FLAT NO.2127/2003, FIRST FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810
CRL.A No. 662 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023
HC-KAR
9TH MAIN, D BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 092,
AND ALSO AT S/O JOSEPH PALRAJ,
DOOR NO.107, THIRUVARANGAM COMPOUND,
D.B.ALWARPET, COONOOR,
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE.
3. MR.JESURAJA BAKTHAN DANIEL
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O MR.DHANSINGH RAJ
R/AT DOOR NO.47/7D
ASIR COMPOUND, HEAD POST OFFICE,
COONOOR - 643 101.
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU.
4. MR.J.JAMES
AGED 4 YEARS, S/O MR.A.JOSEPH JAGANATHAN,
R/AT NO.100, STANELY PARK ROAD,
OTTUPATRAI, COONOOR - 643 101
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE.
5. BENJAMIN PAUL DANIEL
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE J DENIEL,
R/AT NO.17, BROOKLANDA, COONOOR 643 101
THE NILGIRIS TAMIL NADU STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUJTABA H., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C FOR THE
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
C.C.NO.832/2018, ON THE FILE OF SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (SCCH-2) DATED 19.01.2023, BY TRIAL COURT
AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 5 BY IMPOSING
THE FINE OF TWICE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT AND SENTENCE
THEM FOR MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT AS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF NI ACT BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT PASSED AND AWARD MAXIMUM COMPENSATION
TO THE APPEALLANT/COMPLAINANT.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810
CRL.A No. 662 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 668/2023
BETWEEN:
1. FLORANCE FLORAM FARM
NO 53/54, THIPPUR POST,
SUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA 561 204, REP BY ITS SENIOR MANGER,
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, MR A A JOHNSON, S/O A L ANTONY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA D P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. OOTY FLORA
NO -64, CHURCH ROAD,
BEDFORD, COONOOR 643101
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR JESURAJA BAKTHAN DANIEL.
2. MR VIJAY LOUDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
C/O JAGADESHWARI AND MR SURESH RAJ,
FLAT NO 2127/2003, FIRST FLOOR,
9TH MAIN, D-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR.
BANGALORE 560 092,
AND ALSO AT S/O JOSEPH PALRAJ,
DOOR NO 107, THIRUVARANGAM COMPOUND,
D B ALWARPET, COONOOR,
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE.
3. MR JESURAJA BAKTHAN DANIEL
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O MR DHANSINGH RAJ,
R/AT DOOOR NO 47/87D,
ASIR COMPOUND, HEAD POST OFFICE,
COONOOR 643 101
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810
CRL.A No. 662 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023
HC-KAR
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU.
4. MR J JAMES
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O MR A JOSEPH JAGANATHAN,
R/AT NO 100, STANELEY PARK ROAD,
OTTUPATRAI, COONOOR 643 101
THE NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU STATE.
5. BENJAMIN PAUL DANIEL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE J DENIEL, R/AT NO 187,
BROOKLANDS, COONOOR 643 101,
THE NILGIRIS TAMIL NADU STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUJTABA H., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C. FOR THE
APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED
IN C.C.NO. 833/2018, ON THE FILE OF 6TH ADDL.JUDGE
OF SMALL CAUSE A.C.M.M JUDGE AT BANGALORE (SCCH-
2) DATED 19-01-2023, BY TRIAL COURT AND CONVICT
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 BY IMPOSING THE FINE OF
TWICE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT AND SENTENCE THEM FOR
MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT AS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER 138 OF NI ACT BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT PASSED AND AWARD MAXIMUM
COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the Judgment of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR acquittal dated 19.01.2023 passed in C.C.No.832/2018 by the Small Cause Judge at Bangalore (SCCH-2) and C.C.No.833/2018 by the VI Addl. Judge of Small Cause A.C.M.M Judge at Bangalore (SCCH-2) (for short "the trial Court").
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, has observed as under:
"10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC was inserted in the statue 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 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 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.PC."
3. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is also entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide these appeals at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum, i.e. this Court, for further challenge.
4. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815; by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03 rd July, 2025; and in the case of LATE KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR PRITAM SINGH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v. SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 decided on 21st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23rd July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13th November, 2025 and the decision rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016 decided on 24th -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR November, 2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL (supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country.
5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that these appeals be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned copies of the trial court Records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned Appellate Court having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge;-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR ii. The concerned transferee court is directed to issue Court notice to both the parties to appear before the concerned Court, and the concerned Court, thereafter, shall proceed with the case in accordance with law;
iii. In case there are applications pending for condonation of delay or any other pending applications, the same also be transferred to be considered by the learned Judge of transferee Court, in accordance with law;
iv. Considering the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible;
v. The appellant is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title and also the provisions thereof;
vi. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations as to the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3810 CRL.A No. 662 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 668 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. In the light of the above observation and directions, appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE TIN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4