In a significant procedural ruling, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Sessions Court, not the High Court. The Court disposed of the criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), directing its transfer to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to jurisdictional hierarchies in criminal appeals, even as a larger bench of the Supreme Court considers the issue.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shriram Transport and Finance Company Ltd. (now Shriram Finance Ltd.), filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Shri. Parasharam Yallappa Karlekar, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The respondent had been acquitted by the JMFC-VI Court, Belagavi, in C.C. No. 336/2020, dated 02.09.2025, wherein the appellant had sought conviction for the offence of cheque bounce.
Key Facts
- The appellant, a financial institution, had initiated proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against the respondent for dishonour of a cheque.
- The Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 02.09.2025.
- The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 100228 of 2026 before the Karnataka High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, challenging the acquittal.
Procedural History
- 02.09.2025: Respondent acquitted by JMFC-VI Court, Belagavi, in C.C. No. 336/2020.
- 2026: Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 100228 of 2026 before the Karnataka High Court.
- 03.06.2026: High Court heard the appeal and delivered the present judgment.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought the following reliefs:
- Setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2025.
- Conviction of the respondent under Section 138 NI Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC or before the Sessions Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the appeal was maintainable before the High Court, citing the procedural provisions under Section 378(4) CrPC. It was further submitted that the matter was pending consideration before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, which had not stayed the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that a Co-ordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court had previously taken the view that an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Sessions Court, not the High Court. This view had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that while the matter was pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the existing legal position had not been stayed.
Given these circumstances, the Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court. The judgment underscores the principle that jurisdictional hierarchies must be strictly adhered to unless explicitly altered by a higher judicial authority.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable before the High Court. The appeal was transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. The parties were permitted to carry out necessary changes in the cause title of the appeal memo, and the appellant was directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 01.07.2026 without awaiting further notice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Clarity in Appeals Against Acquittal
This judgment reaffirms the jurisdictional hierarchy under Section 378(4) CrPC. Practitioners must ensure that appeals against acquittal by a Magistrate are filed before the Sessions Court, not the High Court, unless the legal position is altered by a higher judicial authority.
Pending Precedents and Judicial Restraint
- Courts are likely to adhere to established precedents unless explicitly stayed or overruled by a higher authority.
- Parties must be mindful of pending references before larger benches, as these may impact the maintainability of appeals.
Procedural Compliance
- The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in criminal appeals.
- Failure to file an appeal before the correct forum may result in its dismissal or transfer, as seen in this case.
