Private Complaint Appeal: Procedural Clarification on Acquittal, Transposing Parties, and Guilty Verdict

The High Court held that the victim in a private complaint case must appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not Section 372. The Court clarified procedural aspects regarding transposing parties in criminal cases, emphasizing adherence to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to a guilty verdict under Section 138. The accused's appeal was dismissed, confirming the Sessions Court's judgment and ordering the accused to serve the remaining sentence in custody.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional Court for appeal against acquittal in a private complaint.
2. Procedural aspects of transposing parties in criminal cases.
3. Evaluation of evidence and findings of the trial and Sessions Courts regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Court for Appeal Against Acquittal in a Private Complaint

The primary legal issue addressed was whether the victim of a crime prosecuted via a private complaint has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), or must seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Full Bench in G.Ganapathy v. N.Senthilvel [(2016) 4 CTC 119] initially held that such an appeal should be filed before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. However, this was later declared per-incuriam by another Full Bench in Rajalingam v. Suganthalakshmi [2020 SCC Online Mad 1052], which concluded that the appeal should lie only before the High Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., with special leave under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C.

Issue 2: Procedural Aspects of Transposing Parties in Criminal Cases

The Court discussed the procedural aspects of transposing parties, concluding that transposing the complainant as the appellant and the accused as the respondent is not in tune with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that any order passed by a lower court with jurisdiction at the time of its decision should be tested judicially in an appeal or revision, not simply disregarded. The Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to treat the grounds of revision filed by the accused as grounds of appeal, thus avoiding unnecessary procedural complexities.

Issue 3: Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of the Trial and Sessions Courts

The trial Court had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused, noting the complainant's failure to establish the foundational fact of passing of consideration and issuance of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt. The Sessions Court reversed this decision, accepting the complainant's case that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, including the complainant's admissions and the accused's defense, concluded that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court confirmed the Sessions Court's judgment, holding the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case.

Conclusion:

The Criminal Revision Case, treated as an appeal, was dismissed, and the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in C.A.No.30 of 2017, dated 04.11.2019, was confirmed. The accused was ordered to be secured and remanded to judicial custody to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.

---