Dismissal of a cheque dishonour complaint for non-appearance operates as acquittal, with appeal lying only to the High Court.
Dismissal of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint for want of prosecution operates as an acquittal because the complaint is tried as a summons case. Once acquittal results, the complainant's remedy is governed by Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in a complaint case special leave to appeal lies only before the High Court under Section 378(4). The Sessions Court is not the proper forum for revision or restoration against such an acquittal, so a restoration order passed by the Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction and could not stand.
Issues: Whether dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for want of prosecution amounted to acquittal of the accused, and whether the complainant's remedy against such order lay only before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is triable as a summons case. When such a complaint is dismissed in default for non-appearance of the complainant, the dismissal operates as an acquittal of the accused. In that situation, the statutory scheme of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs the remedy against the order of acquittal. For a case instituted upon complaint, the complainant may seek special leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4), and the Sessions Court is not the proper forum for challenging the acquittal through revision or restoration proceedings. The restoration order passed by the Sessions Judge therefore conflicted with the exclusive appellate remedy prescribed by law.
Conclusion: The complainant's remedy against the dismissal order lay before the High Court and not before the Sessions Court. The order restoring the complaint was without jurisdiction and could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the impugned restoration order was set aside, leaving the dismissal of the complaint to operate as an acquittal to be questioned only through the statutory remedy before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case, dismissal for want of prosecution amounts to an acquittal, and the statutory remedy against such acquittal lies only under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
