TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the amendment inserting Section 2(wa) and the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. defining victim and granting right of appeal to him? The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 79/2010 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod and the first respondent herein is the accused therein. The above complaint was filed under Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the NI Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the first respondent not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Revision Petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 298/2010 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod Division (Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Kasaragod) under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. In that appeal, the maintainability of the appeal under Section 372 was challenged by the 1st respondent/accused. After hearing both parties on the question of maintainability, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on a finding that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 372 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op Notch Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd., v. Infosoft Systems - Criminal Application (APPA) No. 708 of 2010 which stands against his argument also. The definition of 'victim' alone is the basis on which the argument built up. This is the reasoning for claiming such a right of appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 4. At the first blush, the above arguments may appear to be sound; but, the question is, can a section of a Statute be interpreted or construed in isolation, on the basis of a word alone? What are the basic principles of correct or true construction of a provision? Since Statute is an edict of the Legislature the conventional way of interpreting or construing a Statute is to seek the intention of the maker. According to Salmond on Jurisprudence , the object of interpreting a Statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it and it is the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the mind of the Legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed: Interpretation is of two kinds, which may be distinguished as literal and functional. The former is that which regards exclusively the verbal expression of the law. It do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il held that to ascertain meaning of a clause, in a Statute the Court must look at the whole Statute at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself. 7. One of the accepted methods to ascertain the intention of a Statute is that the Statute must be read as a whole in its context. When a doubt or question arises as to meaning of a provision in a Statute it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context. The context here means previous state of the law, the general scope of the amendment and the mischief that it was intended to remedy. This method was fully accepted by the Supreme Court in the decision in R.S. Reghunath v. State of Karnataka 1992 KHC 756 : AIR 1992 SC 81 : 1992 (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L S) 286 : 1992 (19) ATC 507 and followed in Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. 2001 KHC 1075 : AIR 2001 SC 724 : 2001 (4) SCC 139 : 2001 (105) Comp Cas 309. 8. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1963 KHC 616 : AIR 1963 SC 1241 : 1964 (1) SCR 371 : 1963 BLJR 675 at p. 1265, it is observed as under: The Court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained. 10. In Anderton v. Ryan 1985 (2) All ER 355, p. 359, it is held that the rule which is known as 'purposive construction' or 'mischief rule' enables consideration of four matters in construing an Act: (i) What was the law before the making of the Act? (ii) What was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide? (iii) What is the remedy that the Act has provided? and (iv) What is the reason of the remedy? 11. In Keates v. Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd. 1911-12 All ER 921, Lord Atkinson observed that in the construction of Statutes it is, of course, at all times and under all circumstances permissible to have regard to the state of things existing at the time the Statute was passed and to the evils, which, as appears from the provisions, it was designed to remedy . This principle was adopted by the Supreme Court in the decision in D.N. Banerjee v. P.R. Mukherjee 1953 KHC 306 : AIR 1953 SC 58 : 1953 SCR 302 : 1953 (1) LLJ 195. 12. First of all, keeping in view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., by the insertion of proviso under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Code with effect from 31/12/2009, by the Act 5 of 2009, a complainant who has suffered acquittal of the accused will get another right of appeal also before Sessions Court after the said amendment. The learned counsel drew my attention to the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) and contended that the complainant in a proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a person who has suffered loss by the act committed by the accused. If that be so, such complainant would have a right of appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. also. 15. Keeping in view the principles referred above, I may examine the consequences thereof, if another right of appeal before the Sessions Court is also given to the complainant under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. When a right of appeal subject to Special Leave has been provided under Section 378(4), before the High Court, if an unsuccessful complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act is allowed to file an appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court further held that the provisions of one section of a Statute cannot be used to defeat those of another 'unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them'. In British Airways P/c. v. Union of India 2002 KHC 1123 : AIR 2002 SC 391 : 2002 (2) SCC 95 : 2002 (139) ELT 6, the Supreme Court further held that the rule of construction is well settled that when there are, in an enactment; two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction . Thus, a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a useless lumber or dead letter is not harmonious construction. 18. The Reasons and Objects of the proviso to Section 372 and Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that amendment of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. by way of inserting the proviso is intended for providing a right to the 'victims' in a prosecution launched on police report under Section 190(b) of the Cr.P.C., who were stood remedyless and had been left at the mercy of the State Government or Central Government as the case may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Report and what has been brought into existence by introducing Act 5 of 2009, is further clarified by the Law Commission's 221st Report of 2009. The Law Commission stated as under in the above Report: 2.9 All appeals against orders of acquittal passed by Magistrates were being filed in High Court prior to amendment of Section 378 by Act 25 of 2005. Now, with effect from 23/06/2006, appeals against orders of acquittal passed by Magistrates in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences in cases filed on police report are being filed in the Sessions Court, vide clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the said section. But, appeal against order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon complaint continues to be filed in the High Court, if Special Leave is granted by it on an application made to it by the complainant, vide sub-section (4) of the said section. Section 378 needs change with a view to enable filing of appeals in complaint cases also in the Sessions Court, of course, subject to the grant of Special Leave by it. 23. Going by the two Reports submitted before and after the commencement of Act 5 of 2009, it could be seen that the Law Commission noted the effect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove paragraph, I am of the opinion that 'victims' referred to in the Statement of Objects and Reasons are victims who are the worst sufferers in a crime and do not have much role in the Court proceedings and need to be given certain rights and compensation. They are none other than the victims who earlier stood remedyless in a case instituted on a police report. Can any one say that 'victims' in a case instituted on private complaint under Section 190(a) are worst sufferers who do not have much role in the Court proceedings. There, the complainant himself assumes the role of Prosecutor also. Similarly, can any one say such complainant in a private complaint even if he is a victim, stands, remedyless, when the right of appeal under Section 378(4) has already been provided to him. The negative answer to these questions indicates that what is intended by employing the expression 'victim' in Statement of Reasons and Objects is not a complainant in a case instituted on a private complaint, who has already been provided with a remedy under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., though he may claim to be a victim. 27. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2 definitions starts with In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires . 30. The above view is supported by the decision in Dhandhania Kedia Co. v. CIT 1959 KHC 470 : AIR 1959 SC 219 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 204 : 1959 (35) ITR 400 wherein the Apex Court held that: But where the context makes the definition given in the interpretation clause inapplicable, a defined word when used in the body of the Statute may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause; all definitions given in an interpretation clause are therefore normally enacted subject to the qualification 'unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context' or 'unless the context otherwise requires '. Further, in the decision in Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras v. Fraser Ross 1960 KHC 710 : AIR 1960 SC 971 : 1960 (3) SCR 857 : 1960 (30) Comp Cas (I) 13, speaking for the Bench, Wanchoo, J. held that: It is well settled that all Statutory definitions or abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the definition clauses which created them and it may be that even where the definition is exhau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in Mahesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand, cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is so held on the basis of the interpretation given to 'victim'. I am unable to agree with the literal interpretation made without ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, context and the spirit of law. It is to be remembered that the essence of law always lies in its spirit. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the context under which the expression 'victim' employed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is that of 'victim' who has suffered injury or loss in a case instituted on a police report and who stood remedyless at the mercy of State Government or Central Government as the case may be or the District Magistrate alone, for preferring appeal against acquittal of the accused. The complainant in a case instituted on a private complaint under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. though, can be claimed to be a 'victim', does not come under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., since the context under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. requires to make a constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
