TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could directly seek leave to appeal before the High Court against an order of acquittal after the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether the proper remedy lay in an appeal before the Sessions Court.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a right of appeal on a victim against an order of acquittal, and the expression "victim" in Section 3(wa) of the Code includes a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act or omission complained of. A complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, who has suffered loss due to non-payment of the cheque amount, falls within that definition. As an appeal from a Magistrate's conviction in such a case ordinarily lies to the Sessions Court, the victim's appeal against acquittal also lies to that court. A direct leave-to-appeal application before the High Court was therefore not the correct procedural route.
Conclusion: The leave-to-appeal applications were not maintainable before the High Court and were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: After the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a victim in a Section 138 cheque dishonour case must file the appeal against acquittal before the court to which the appeal against conviction would ordinarily lie, and not directly seek leave to appeal before the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
