Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1202 - HC - Indian LawsOrder of Acquittal - what exactly is the meaning of the term 'victim' in S. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Construction and interpretation of essentially two provisions of the Code - Section 372 - Section 378 - whether the complainant in a complaint case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is a victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code, as amended by Act No.5 of 2009? Held that: - Before the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the remedy of the complainant in a case instituted on complaint against the order of acquittal of the accused was to file an appeal before the High Court under S. 378(4) provided special leave to appeal was granted by the High Court. S. 378(4) continues in the Code even after the amendment brought out by Act 5 of 2009, by which the definition of 'victim' and a proviso to S. 372 of the Code were inserted. Drastic changes were made in S. 378 by Act 25 of 2005 and even at that time, S. 378(4) was not amended. It cannot be assumed that the Parliament was not aware of the remedy to file an appeal only to the High Court provided under S. 378(4) to challenge an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon complaint. Before the amendment, in a case instituted on police report, the victim could challenge the order of acquittal only by filing are vision under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the introduction of the definition of 'victim' in S. 2(wa), the victim in a case instituted on police report can prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. No special leave to appeal is required in the case of an appeal filed under the proviso to S. 372. The expression 'victim' requires an interpretation in the context of the provisions in Sections 372 and 378 to exclude the complainant in a complaint case, who is also the victim, from the purview of the definition of victim under S. 2(wa). The principles of harmonious construction and the principle that one section in a statute cannot be used to defeat the provision in another section would enable the Court to come to such a conclusion alone. Such an interpretation would make the textual interpretation to match with the contextual. In the present case, since the Sessions Court entertained the appeals and confirmed the acquittal, it is necessary to set aside the judgments rendered by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the judgments in Crl. A. No. 727 of 2012 and 728 of 2012 are set aside - The remedy of the petitioners is to file appeals under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court with special leave to appeal - petition dismissed being not maintainable.
|