9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, interpretation of newly added proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the right to file an appeal.
Summary: The petition was filed u/s 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order allowing an appeal against acquittal u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was based on the newly added proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the right to appeal to the victim. The petitioners argued that only the victim, not the complainant, has the right to appeal. The definition of 'victim' was crucial, as per the newly added proviso, and it includes any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the accused's actions. The Court analyzed the definitions of 'victim' and 'injury' as per the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. It was established that harm to property, including non-encashment of a cheque, constitutes injury. Therefore, the holder of the bounced cheque is considered both the complainant and the victim. The Court clarified that the right to seek leave to appeal u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reserved for complainants acting in the interest of common good, such as a Food Inspector under specific acts. The judgment upheld the lower court's decision to entertain the appeal, dismissing the revision petition. In conclusion, the impugned order was deemed valid, and the revision petition was dismissed. The Criminal Section was directed to provide certified copies of the order to the parties upon request.
|
