Karnataka High Court
M/S Concan Specialised Engineering ... vs Ashok Kumar Guliani on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16338
CRL.A No. 100063 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100063 OF 2019 (A-)
BETWEEN:
M/S CONCAN SPECIALISED ENGINEERING SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. PREETAM JAYARAM MASURKAR,
AGED: 55 YEARS, R/O: 401, RAYKAR MANOR,
KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASHOK KUMAR GULIANI,
AGE: MAJOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS
INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.4,
GROUND FLOOR, KEHAR SINGH ESTATE,
WESTEND MARG, SAI-UL-AJAB,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110030.
Digitally signed by
SAMREEN AYUB 2. M/S. SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS
DESHNUR INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.4,
Location: HIGH GROUND FLOOR, KEHAR SINGH ESTATE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA WESTEND MARG, SAI-UL-AJAB,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 14.12.2018 IN C.C.NO.211/2013 PASSED BY THE JMFC II-
COURT, KARWAR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138
OF NI ACT AND AWARD COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16338
CRL.A No. 100063 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)
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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16338 CRL.A No. 100063 of 2019 HC-KAR proviso to 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 Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being 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 Apex Court, in Celestial 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 jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.
5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court.
6. The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16338 CRL.A No. 100063 of 2019 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 purpose, this appeal stands disposed off.
9. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE PJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 24