Victim's appeal in cheque dishonour matters proceeds through the proper appellate forum, with substituted service and presence secured for merits hearing.

In a cheque dishonour appeal against acquittal, the court examined whether the complainant, as a victim, should pursue the independent appeal provided by the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the forum hearing appeals from conviction, rather than the High Court retaining the matter under Section 378(4) CrPC. It treated the victim's appeal as the proper statutory route and applied Chapter XXIX procedure for its disposal on merits. The court also held that registered-post notice returned with endorsements of non-availability, together with substituted service by publication, was sufficient in the circumstances. Bailable warrant and, if needed, an advocate commissioner could be used to secure the accused's presence for effective hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a cheque dishonour appeal against acquittal, the High Court should proceed with the appeal itself or make it over to the Court of Session in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether service of notice and securing the accused's presence could be treated as sufficient on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The reasoning examined the effect of the 2009 amendment inserting the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which confers an independent right of appeal on the victim, and contrasted it with the conditional appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was concluded that a complainant who falls within the definition of victim should ordinarily pursue the statutory appeal before the Court where an appeal from conviction would lie, and that the appellate procedure under Chapter XXIX, including Sections 385, 386 and allied provisions, would govern the matter. The reasoning further held that notice sent by registered post and returned with endorsements indicating that the addressee had left, together with substituted service by publication, amounted to sufficient service in the circumstances. On the question of securing presence, the Court treated issuance of bailable warrant and, if necessary, execution through an advocate commissioner as permissible to move the matter to effective hearing on merits.

Conclusion: The matter was directed to be made over to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, with directions to issue bailable warrant, secure the accused's presence, obtain bond if required, and thereafter hear and decide the appeal on merits.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to retain the appeal for direct merits hearing and instead channelled the challenge to the acquittal for disposal by the Sessions Court through the statutorily appropriate appellate route and procedural safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, the victim's statutory appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an independent and substantive remedy, and appellate procedure may be adapted by purposive construction to secure effective hearing and the accused's presence so that the appeal can be decided on merits by the proper appellate forum.

---