TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal in Complaint Case Acquittal: Sessions Court Lacks Jurisdiction</h1> <h3>Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Versus Damodaran N. and Another</h3> Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Versus Damodaran N. and Another - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether an appeal against acquittal of the accused in a complaint instituted u/s 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging the offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act, would lie before the Sessions Court u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C.Rs.Summary:Issue 1: Appeal Against Acquittal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.The primary issue is whether an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a complaint case under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, would lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The court examined the legislative intent behind the amendment inserting the proviso to Section 372 and the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. The court noted that Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. already provided a remedy for filing an appeal against acquittal in complaint cases, which lies before the High Court with special leave. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of Sections 372 and 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. are distinct and should not conflict with each other.Contextual Interpretation of 'Victim'The court discussed the principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that a statute must be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to other provisions. The court held that the term 'victim' in the context of Section 372 refers to victims in cases initiated by police reports under Section 190(b) of the Cr.P.C., who previously had no right to appeal. The court rejected the argument that the complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case, who is also a 'victim', would have a right to appeal under Section 372, as it would nullify the special leave requirement under Section 378(4).Legislative Intent and Law Commission ReportsThe court referred to the 154th and 221st Reports of the Law Commission and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 5 of 2009 to support its interpretation. The Reports indicated that the amendments aimed to provide rights to victims in cases initiated by police reports, not to create an additional right of appeal for complainants in private complaint cases.ConclusionThe court concluded that an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act would not lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Instead, such an appeal would lie before the High Court with special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The judgment of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 