TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether a criminal revision petition was maintainable against judgments arising from complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the complainant had already pursued and failed in the appellate forum; (ii) Whether the revision petitions could be withdrawn with liberty to file criminal appeals, with the benefit of time spent in the wrong forum.
Issue (i): Whether a criminal revision petition was maintainable against judgments arising from complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the complainant had already pursued and failed in the appellate forum.
Analysis: The remedies against acquittal were examined with reference to the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court noted that an acquittal was assailable by the complainant through the statutory appeal provided under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not by way of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The earlier resort to the appellate courts did not convert the impugned acquittal judgments into orders amenable to revision. The Court therefore treated the revisional route as legally unavailable for challenging those acquittal judgments.
Conclusion: The revision petitions were held not maintainable as a substitute for the appeal remedy under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (ii): Whether the revision petitions could be withdrawn with liberty to file criminal appeals, with the benefit of time spent in the wrong forum.
Analysis: The Court accepted that the complainant had proceeded under a mistaken legal remedy and had spent time pursuing the matter in the wrong forum. Considering that the respondent had participated in the earlier proceedings and that the complainant should have an opportunity to pursue the correct appellate remedy, the Court allowed withdrawal of the revisions on payment of costs. The Court also directed that the time spent in the wrong proceedings be given the protection contemplated by Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the purpose of filing appeals.
Conclusion: The revision petitions were permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file criminal appeals, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was directed to be made available.
Final Conclusion: The revisions ended without adjudicating the merits of the acquittal, but the complainant was left free to pursue the correct appellate remedy, subject to costs and limitation protection.
Ratio Decidendi: Against an order of acquittal, the complainant's remedy lies in a statutory appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a criminal revision cannot be used as a substitute for that appeal.
TaxTMI 
