TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Addl. Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against acquittal filed by a private complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The complaint arose from a private prosecution under Section 138, and the trial court had acquitted the accused. The challenge was whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal could be entertained in the Court of Sessions. Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs appeals against acquittal at the instance of a private complainant and confines such remedy to the High Court. An appeal filed before the Sessions Court, therefore, was beyond the statutory forum and any order passed on such an appeal was without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge was not maintainable, and the impugned remand order was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded because the appellate forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the complainant's appeal against acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: A private complainant's appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies only before the High Court, and an order passed by a Sessions Court on such an appeal is without jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
