Dismissed¶49

The State of Karnataka v. Madhu H S

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025CRL.A/1547/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay dismissed; Section 5 Limitation Act; 391 days delay; State appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC; acquittal in CC 183/2019 for Sections 279 and 304A IPC; insufficient cause; negligence of Law Officers (SR) Mangalore Division and (JR) Directorate of Prosecution; no affidavit by responsible officers; certified copy delivery date typographical error; leave to appeal not considered on merits; Karnataka High Court, Justice G Basavaraja, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit's statement that the certified copy of the judgment was received on 02.04.2025 is not correct; it is a typographical mistake - the copy was applied for on 01.04.2024, was ready on 15.04.2024, and was delivered on 02.04.2024. ¶41

The State of Karnataka Vs Madhu H S — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43214 CRL.A No. 1547 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2025 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE JAIPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MADHU H S, S/O SIVAKUMAR M.S., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT HIRIYUR,

¶14

BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301.

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SAMPATH KUMAR A P, S/O PARAMESH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT HORABAIL KUDUVALLI, TIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAISNT THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD 27.03.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN CC.NO.183/2019, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304A OF IPC AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43214 CRL.A No. 1547 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

ORDER ON IA.I/2025

¶26

IA.I/2025 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to

¶27

condone the delay of 391 days in filing this appeal.

¶28

This application is supported with the affidavit

¶29

of Gadigeppa Nekar, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa, in which it is stated that the impugned judgment and order under challenge, was passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa in CC No.183/2019 on 27.03.2024. He applied the certified copy of the judgment on 01.04.2024. Date was given to receive the same on 15.04.2024. Same was received by him on 02.04.2025. He has forwarded his opinion to the Law Officer (SR), Mangalore Division, Mangalore on 15.04.2024. The Law Officer Senior, Mangalore Division received the same and furnished and forwarded his

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:43214 CRL.A No. 1547 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

opinion to the Officer of IGP, Mangalore and entire records are sent to the Office of the Director of Prosecution, which are received by the concerned authority.

¶34

The Law Officer (JR), Office of the Director of

¶35

Prosecution also furnished her opinion and forwarded the same holding the case as fit for appeal, furnished her opinion under the covering letter of Director of Prosecution, the entire records are sent to the Office of Principal Home Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore has also concurred and recommended to prefer an appeal and forwarded the file to the Office of Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this application.

¶37

I have examined the material placed before this Court. The trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43214 CRL.A No. 1547 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

on 27.03.2024. The copy was applied on 01.04.2024, copy

¶41

was ready on 15.04.2024. The applicant appeared on 02.04.2024 and copy delivered on 02.04.2024. But in the affidavit of the deponent, he has stated that he has received the copy of this judgment on 02.04.2025, which is not correct. The same is a typographical mistake. It is also stated in the affidavit that, he has forwarded the copy of the judgment to the Law Officer-Senior, Mangalore Division, Mangalore on 15.04.2024. As per the averments

¶42

of the affidavit, the delay is caused, due to negligence on the part of the Law Officer (SR), Mangalore Division and also Law Officer (JR), Office of the Directorate of Prosecution. However, the concerned officers have not filed any affidavit for delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to place sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 391 days. Hence,

¶43

I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:43214 CRL.A No. 1547 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ORDER

¶48

IA No.I/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act

¶49