Victim status and appeal rights in cheque dishonour complaints remain confined to the complaint route under criminal procedure.
A complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a "victim" within Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the case is a private complaint and does not fit the statutory charging framework for victim status. For that reason, the complainant cannot invoke the victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 against acquittal; the proper remedy remains an appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) with special leave. The Sessions Court's appellate order was therefore without jurisdiction in law.
Issues: (i) Whether a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether such complainant can prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of under Section 378(4) of that Code.
Issue (i): Whether a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a right of appeal on a victim, and Section 2(wa) defines victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused has been charged. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a private complaint, and the accused therein is not charged in the manner contemplated by Section 2(wa). The Court adopted the settled view that such a complainant does not fall within the statutory definition of victim.
Conclusion: The complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (ii): Whether such complainant can prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of under Section 378(4) of that Code.
Analysis: The statutory scheme preserves Section 378(4) as the remedy for a complainant in a case instituted on a complaint, requiring special leave to appeal to the High Court. The victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is a separate remedy intended for cases where the definition of victim is satisfied, and the two remedies are not concurrent for a complainant in a private complaint case. On that basis, an appeal against acquittal by such complainant before the Sessions Court is not maintainable under Section 372.
Conclusion: Such complainant is not entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and must proceed under Section 378(4) of that Code.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order passed by the Sessions Court was without jurisdiction in law, and the challenge to that order succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not a victim within Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the exclusive remedy against acquittal in such complaint cases is an appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) of that Code with special leave.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
