Victim-complainant appeal rights under criminal procedure prevail over special leave where a statutory acquittal appeal is available.

Where the complainant is also the victim in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a statutory right of appeal against acquittal. In that setting, the same person should not bypass the available statutory appeal and seek special leave under Section 378(4). Section 378(4) remains relevant for complainants who are not victims, so the provision is not redundant. The special leave request was declined and the appellant was directed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be granted to a complainant who was also the victim, when a statutory appeal was available under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court held that the appellant was both the complainant and the victim in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that situation, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 conferred a statutory right of appeal against acquittal. The Court reasoned that where such efficacious statutory remedy exists, the same person should not be permitted to bypass it and seek special leave under Section 378(4). The Court also noted that Section 378(4) continues to operate in cases where the complainant is not the victim, so the provision is not rendered redundant.

Conclusion: Special leave to appeal was declined and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---