1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.978/2019

BETWEEN

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P.S.

MADIKERI

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI B K SHIVANNA

S/O KARIYAIAH

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER

SRI VIGHNESHWARA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

SHANIVARASANTHE

SOMWARPET

R/O L.I.G. 17, HOUSING BOARD COLONY

HUNSUR

MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378

(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.10.2018,

PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT

MADIKERI IN SPL.CASE (CORRUPTION) NO.3/2012 ON HIS FILE

ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES

2

PUNISHABLE

UNDER

SECTIONS

7,13(1)(d)

READ

WITH

SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON I.A.NO.1/2019 ON 17.03.2022

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2019

The

learned

counsel

for

the

appellant

filed

this

interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condoning the delay of 130 days in filing this appeal. The

counsel also filed an affidavit in view of the delay in condoning

the delay in filing the appeal. One Sri.Subramanya, Police

Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Madikeri (now in Bengaluru)

filed an affidavit stating that the judgment delivered by the trial

court on 06.10.2018 under the Special Case (Corruption)

No.3/2012 by acquitting the respondent for the offence

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2)

of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The certified copy of the

judgment was taken and from the date of receipt of the copy,

within 60 days appeal is required to be filed. Due to the delay in

getting the approval from the Head of the Department and the

Government Order delay was caused. The matter was entrusted

3

to the special prosecutor on 26.04.2019. Thereafter the appeal

came to be filed and there is no intentional or deliberate delay in

filing the appeal and it was only bonafide administrative reasons.

Hence prayed for allowing the application and condoning the

delay in filing the application.

2. The respondent filed objection contenting that 60 days

time to file the application for seeking leave of the Court, they

may be justified the reasons for condoning the delay. The

memorandum of facts filed by the advocate cannot be

acceptable and even under Section 3 of the Karnataka

Lokayuktha Act, the Police Officers are required to file the

affidavit. The judgment was delivered on 6.10.2018 there is

inordinate delay in filing the appeal. In fact there are 176 days

delay in filing the appeal and not 138 days, Hence prayed for

dismissal of petition. He also relied upon the judgment of this

court in similar case.

3. Having heard the arguments and perused the records,

especially the provisions of Section 378 (5) of Cr.P.C for grant of

4

special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal it shall not be

entertained by the High Court after expiry of 6 months where

the complainant is a public servant and 60 days in every other

case computed from the date of the order of acquittal. The

learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal is

filed within 6 months and therefore there is no delay in filing the

appeal. Which is objected by the respondent counsel.

The provisions of section 378 (5) of Cr.P.C read as under:

"Appeal in case of acquittal:

(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special

leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained

by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the

complainant is a public servant, and sixty da