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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; appellant granted liberty to take appropriate legal steps (criminal revision petition) against the Appellate Court judgment, permitted to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and the Office is directed to return copies of the judgments.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal filed under S.374(2) Cr.PC / S.415(2) BNSS against the conviction confirmed by the Sessions Judge is maintainable, or whether a criminal revision petition is the proper remedy. +1 more

Court's answer

This appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge (first appellate court); the office objection to that effect is upheld, a criminal revision petition being the indicated course.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

The appellant is permitted to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 in taking further legal steps against the appellate judgment.ratio¶¶30
The Office is directed to return copies of the judgments to the appellant.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (G Basavaraja J), CRL.A No. 2626 of 2025 (NC: 2026:KHC:1832), decided 13.01.2026: Criminal appeal filed u/s 374(2) Cr.PC / 415(2) BNSS against the conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2024 in C.C.No.98/2024 (Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru), as confirmed on 22.11.2025 by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70) in Crl.A.No.1694/2024, was held not maintainable against the Sessions Judge's judgment; the office objection was upheld and the appeal dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was given liberty to take appropriate legal steps (criminal revision petition) against the appellate judgment, permitted to avail Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and the Office was directed to return copies of the judgments. No merits of the conviction were examined.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1832 CRL.A No. 2626 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. 2626 OF 2025 (C)

BETWEEN:

SRI ANAND KOTRESHWAR SITHALE S/O KOTESHWAR SITHALE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DIRECTOR (FORMER) R/AT NO. 007, SLV RAJDRIVA APARTMENT 19^TH MAIN 5^TH BLOCK 38^TH CROSS PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043 &APPELLANT (BY SMT. DEEPA J., ADVOCATE (VC)) 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) CR.PC (FILED U/S 415(2) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED IN CC NO.98/2024 BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

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

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1832 CRL.A No. 2626 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.98/2024 dated 26.09.2024 which is confirmed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1694/2024 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 the First Appellate Court by availing the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1832 CRL.A No. 2626 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.: 23