Sri Anand Kotreshwari Sithale Vs the Enforcement Officer — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Anand Kotreshwari Sithale Vs the Enforcement Officer — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty given to the appellant to take appropriate legal steps against the Appellate Court's judgment in accordance with law; appellant permitted to avail the benefit of Section 14, Indian Limitation Act, 1963; Office directed to return copy of the judgments to the appellant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal filed under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. against a judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge (the first appellate court confirming the Special Court's conviction) is maintainable.

Court's answer

The criminal appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge; the office objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant is given liberty to take appropriate legal steps against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with law, and is permitted to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (following counsel's submission that he may prefer a criminal revision petition availing Section 14).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (G Basavaraja, J., single judge; oral judgment, 13 January 2026) dismissed CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025 as not maintainable. Holding: an appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. does not lie against a judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal had been filed against the conviction of the appellant (former Director; Accused No.3) dated 26.09.2024 in C.C.No.97/2024 by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, as confirmed on 22.11.2025 in Crl.A.No.1693/2024 by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru, in a prosecution by the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Upholding the registry's objection, the court nonetheless granted the appellant liberty to take appropriate legal steps against the appellate judgment in accordance with law, permitted him to avail the benefit of S.14, Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (exclusion of time spent pursuing the appeal, enabling a criminal revision petition as urged by counsel), and directed the Office to return copies of the judgments.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2616 OF 2025 (C)

BETWEEN:

SRI ANAND KOTRESHWAR SITHALE S/O KOTRESHWAR SITHALE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DIRECTOR (FORMER) R/AT NO. 007, SLV RAJDRIVA APARTMENT, 19TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 38TH CROSS, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.

&APPELLANT

(BY SMT. DEEPA J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

&RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 415(2) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.97/2024 BY THE SPL.COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.3 OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in C.C.No.97/2024 dated 26.09.2024 which is confirmed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1693/2024 dated 22.11.2025.

The office has raised objection that this appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The office has also noted that the criminal revision petition may be preferred. Hence, the office objection is upheld.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that permission may be granted to the appellant to prefer criminal revision petition against the judgment passed by

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1825 CRL.A No. 2616 of 2025

HC-KAR

the First Appellate Court by availing the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Considering the submission of the appellant's

counsel, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the appellant to take appropriate legal steps against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, in accordance with law.

(ii) The appellant is permitted to avail the benefit under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

(iii) The Office is directed to return copy of the judgments to the appellant.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA)

JUDGE

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK