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: (i) Whether the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a victim within Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether such complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code against acquittal; (iii) whether the only remedy available to such complainant is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code with special leave.
Issue (i): Whether the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a victim within Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The definition of victim in Section 2(wa) applies to a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act or omission for which the accused has been charged. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is tried as a summons case and no charge is framed. Since the accused is not charged in such proceedings, the complainant does not fall within the statutory definition of victim for the purpose of Section 2(wa).
Conclusion: The complainant in a Section 138 complaint case is not a victim within Section 2(wa) of the Code.
Issue (ii): Whether such complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code against acquittal.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers a right of appeal on a victim. That general right cannot be extended to a complainant in a private complaint case who is already governed by the special appellate provision in Section 378(4). Reading the proviso as conferring a parallel route would create multiple appellate forums and dilute the special scheme enacted for complaint cases.
Conclusion: Such complainant cannot maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.
Issue (iii): Whether the only remedy available to such complainant is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code with special leave.
Analysis: Section 378(4) specifically governs appeals against acquittal in cases instituted upon complaint and requires special leave of the High Court. The special remedy remains intact notwithstanding the later introduction of the victim's appeal under Section 372, and it continues to govern complaint cases, including prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Conclusion: The complainant's remedy is only under Section 378(4) of the Code, after obtaining special leave.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the complainant, the appeal before the Sessions Court was held not maintainable, and the criminal petition succeeded in setting aside the impugned appellate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In a summons case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where no charge is framed, the complainant is not a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and must seek recourse only under Section 378(4) of that Code against acquittal.
TaxTMI 
