Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Section 138 Case, Emphasizes Right to Appeal in Dishonored Cheque Cases

The court dismissed leave to appeal applications by complainants in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It emphasized that victims, including those suffering losses from dishonored cheques, have the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. Appeals in such cases should be filed before the court of Sessions, not directly to the High Court. The court advised the appellants to file appeals properly and return certified copies of the judgment and vakalatnamas to their counsel, allowing for condonation of delay. The judgment clarifies the jurisdiction for appeals in Section 138 cases, stressing compliance with Section 372 Cr.P.C.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act dismissed by Magistrate - Interpretation of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. - Definition of "victim" under Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C. - Right of victim to prefer appeal against court's order - Jurisdiction for appeal in case of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by complainants whose complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were dismissed by the Magistrate. The appeals were filed under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. The crucial aspect considered in this case is the interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., added by an amending Act, which grants the "victim" the right to appeal against court orders. The definition of "victim" under Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C. includes a person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act for which the accused is charged.

The court emphasized that a person who has suffered losses due to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act falls within the definition of "victim." Therefore, such a victim has the right to prefer an appeal against court orders, as per the newly added proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. In cases of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, the appeal would lie to the court of Sessions. The judgment highlights that the appellants should have preferred appeals before the court of Sessions under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., instead of directly filing leave to appeal applications before the High Court.

Consequently, the leave to appeal applications were dismissed as not maintainable, with the appellants advised to file appeals before the court of Sessions. The court directed the return of certified copies of the judgment and vakalatnamas to the appellants' counsel, with the option for the appellants to seek condonation of delay. The judgment clarifies the proper jurisdiction for appeals in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing adherence to the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. for filing appeals by victims.

---