SRI J B RAMACHANDRA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3854 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. J.B. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE BUUCHI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
ST
R/O.NO.43, 1 CROSS,
LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT,
ABBIGERE POST, CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA. A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WEST POLICE STATION,
MANDYA CITY,
REP BY S.P.P
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED ON MEMO DATED 12.02.2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.A.NO.92/2025 FOR
THE OFFENCE P/US/ 420, 467, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MANDYA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following
prayer:
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
maybe pleased to call for the records and set-aside the
impugned order passed on memo dated 12-02-2026 and
consequently quash the entire proceedings in
Crl.Appeal.No.92/2025, for the offence punishable U/s
st
420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. pending on the file of 1
ADDL District & Sessions Judge at Mandya, in the interest
of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri. Hanumanthappa A., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the
material on record.
3. The petitioner finds himself entangled in
criminal proceedings for offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC. Upon completion of
investigation, the Police laid a charge sheet, which
culminated in registration of C.C. No.22/2014 before the
competent Court. The matter thereafter traversed the
entire spectrum of criminal adjudication, and upon a full-
fledged trial, the concerned Court, by judgment dated
27.03.2025, acquitted the petitioner of all charges levelled
against him. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State
has preferred an appeal before the Court of Session.
4. It is this appeal that has driven the petitioner to
the doors of this Court, raising a singular contention: that
the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner, who
granted sanction for preferring the appeal, lacked
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
competence in law, and that such sanction ought to have
emanated only from the State Government.
5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would,
however, stoutly repel the contention. It is his submission that
Section 419(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
unequivocally vests the power in the District Magistrate to
direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal before the
Court of Session against an order of acquittal. It is only where
the appeal lies to the High Court that the authority would rest
with the State Government. T he provision reads as follows:
" 419(1)(a). The District Magistrate may, in any
case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to
the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by
a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable
offence;"
Section 419(1)(a) of the BNSS occupies the field
concerning appeals against acquittal. A plain and
meaningful reading of the provision leaves no room for
ambiguity. The legislature, in its wisdom, has expressly
conferred authority upon the District Magistrate to
authorize the filing of an appeal before the Court of
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
Session against an order of acquittal rendered by a
Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable
offences. The language employed is direct, categorical,
and admits of no elasticity for interpretative dilution.
6. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner,
therefore, collapses on the face of the statute itself. The
provision stands as a complete answer to the argument
canvassed. When the legislative command is explicit,
interpretative adventurism must yield to statutory
fidelity. Courts cannot read into the provision a
restriction that the legislature, consciously or otherwise,
has chosen not to impose.
7. In the case at hand, the Deputy Commissioner, acting
in the capacity of the District Magistrate, has accorded
permission for preferring the appeal against the order of
acquittal before the Court of Session. Such exercise of power is
squarely traceable to Section 419(1)(a) of the BNSS and is fully
within the bounds of statutory competence. No legal infirmity,
procedural impropriety, or jurisdictional error can be attributed
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27448
CRL.P No. 3854 of 2026
HC-KAR
to the said order. The appeal against acquittal is admittedly
preferred before the Court of Session and not before this Court.
8. The petitioner’s contention that permission ought to
have been granted only by the State is, therefore,
fundamentally misconceived and stands rendered unsustainable
in the teeth of the statutory provision extracted hereinabove.
Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8