TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this Court held that an appeal would not lie before the Sessions Court and it would lie only before the High Court under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Shibu Joseph's case, another learned single Judge held that the complainant in a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being a victim as defined in S. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging an order of acquittal. In Shibu Joseph's case, the learned single Judge referred to the decision in Sree Gokulam Chit's case. However, that decision was not followed on the ground that "the various provisions regarding the rights conferred on the victim were not considered" in Sree Gokulam Chit's case. When these Criminal Revision Petitions came up before the learned single Judge who decided Sree Gokulam Chit's case, the Revisions were referred to the Division Bench as per the order dated 9.12.2013. 2. In the present Criminal Revision Petitions, the complaint cases under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were disposed of by the Additional Chief Judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in revision. (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal. (3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. (6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2). 7. The changes made by the amendment in S. 378, by Act 25 of 2005, are the following: a) An appeal against acquittal would lie to the Court of Session in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences cases which were instituted on police report. Before the amendment, appeal could be presented only to the High Court in such cases. b) In respect of cases not covered by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 378, appeal against acquittal lies before High Court, even after the amendment. c) Similar changes have been brought out by Act 25 of 2005 in sub-section (2) of Section 378 also. d) Section 378, before its amendment by Act 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....378 is kept intact. It cannot be assumed that the Parliament was unaware of the existence of subsection (4) of S. 378, when it thought of introducing the proviso to S. 372 and providing a definition for 'victim'. 11. In Shibu Joseph & Ors. v. Tomy K.J. & Ors. ILR 2013 (4) Ker. 866 2013 (4) KHC 629), the learned single Judge mentioned the two views that would be possible in considering the question whether an appeal would lie to the Sessions Court from an order of acquittal in a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Those two views are the following: 6......One group pointed out that the amendment, namely, Amendment Act 5 of 2009, has amended S. 372 Cr.P.C. incorporating a right of appeal to the victims and also introducing definition of 'victim' as per S. 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. is intended to benefit a specific group of persons falling within the ambit of the definition of victim. It was contended that these persons had no remedy earlier against acquittal and they had no role to play in the proceedings. It was felt that the victims were the most affected persons in a crime, and in the absence of any provision in the Cr.P.C. for them to partici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lainants in private complaints, who satisfy the definition of victim as contained in S. 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., are entitled to file appeal as provided under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. as a matter of right. (b) Complainant in a complaint under S. 138 of N.I. Act is also a victim and is entitled to the same benefit as the victim in any other case instituted on a private complaint. (c) In case of acquittal of accused on a private complaint, if the complainant is also the victim, he may have two remedies, namely, appeal under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. as a matter of right, and appeal to High Court after obtaining special leave. But going by the principle of hierarchy of Courts, the aggrieved person will have to approach the lower forum which is competent to entertain the appeal. If he avails of one of the two remedies, he is precluded from resorting to the other remedy. (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31/12/2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That is why the expression "in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires" is used in the Section containing definition of the various terms. If the context otherwise requires, a meaning different from that in the definition can be employed for interpreting the provisions in the statute. So, the question to be enquired into while interpreting the scope of the proviso to S. 372 of the Code is whether a different meaning should be assigned to the expression victim. It is also to be decided whether the context otherwise requires a restricted meaning to be given to the term 'victim'. 15. The principles governing interpretation of statutes are relevant in this context. In the statement of objects and reasons of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 it is stated: At present, the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime and they don't have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system.......There is an urgent need to provide relief to women, particularly victims of sexual offences, and provide fair-trial to persons of unsound mind who are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading up to the legislation. But we cannot use this statement as an aid to the construction of the enactment or to show that the legislature did not intend to acquire the proprietary rights vested in the State or in any way to affect the State Governments' rights as owners of minerals. A statute, as passed by Parliament, is the expression of the collective intention of the legislature as a whole, and any statement made by an individual, albeit a Minister, of the intention and objects of the Act cannot be used to cut down the generality of the words used in the statute. 19. In Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer, Thandla & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 692), the Supreme Court held: 11. Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be utilized for the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaning of the language employed by the legislature in drafting a statute and excluding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1986) 2 SCC 237), it Was held: 16. Our own court has generally taken the view that ascertainment of legislative Intent is a basic rule of statutory construction and that a rule of construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and that though a construction, according to plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a construction should not be adopted where it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities, vide K.P. Varghese v. I.T.O. (1981 KLT SN 91 (C. No. 163) SC : (1981) 4 SCC 173), State Bank of Travancore v. Mohd. M. Khan, (1981 KLT SN 91 (C. No. 162) SC : (1981) 4 SCC 82), Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449); Ravula Subba Rao v. C.I.T., 1956 SCR 577 (AIR 1956 SC 604); Govindlal v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1976) 1 SCR 451 : (AIR 1976 SC 263); Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. (1984 KLT SN 7 (C. No. 14) SC : (1984) 2 SCC 50). 24. In South Asia Industries Private Limited v. S. Saroop Singh & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 346), it was held that the object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. 25. In Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ami Dayal AIR 1922 Privy Council 17), the Privy Council held that one section in a statute cannot be used to defeat another section unless it is impossible to effect a reconciliation between them. 28. In D. Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1211), the Supreme Court held that it is a well settled rule of construction that the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. 29. In The Venguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. M/s. Fraser and Ross & Anr. AIR 1960 SC 971), the Supreme Court held: 6......It is well settled that all statutory definitions or abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the definition clauses which created them and it may be that even where the definition is exhaustive inasmuch as the word defined is said to mean a certain thing, it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meaning in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or the context. That is why all definitions in statu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt under S. 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the High Court was again challenged before the Supreme Court by the accused. The question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether in a complaint case an appeal from an order of acquittal would lie to the Sessions Court under S. 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to the High Court under S. 378(4) of the Code. The Supreme Court considered the relevant clauses in the 154th and 221st Reports of the Law Commission of India and the amendment brought out by Act 25 of 2005 and it was held thus: 23. In view of the above, we conclude that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court. In the instant case the complaint alleging offences punishable under S. 16(1)(1A) read with S. 7 of the P.F.A. Act and the Rules is filed by complainant Shri Jaiswal, Local Health Authority through Delhi Administration. The appellant was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The complainant can challenge the order of acquittal by filing an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under S. 378(4), special leave to appeal is required. It cannot be said that the law makers provided two remedies to the complainant in a complaint case (who is also a victim) to file an appeal before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. There is no provision either in S. 372 or in S. 378 that when an appeal against an order of acquittal is filed by the complainant before the Sessions Court, he is precluded from filing an appeal before the High Court under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S. 378(4) does not say that an appeal lies to the High Court only against an original order of acquittal passed by the trial court. If it is to be interpreted that the proviso to S. 372 covers also an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case, what prevents the complainant from filing a further appeal to the High Court under S. 378(4) if the Sessions Court also acquits the accused confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial court? By the Amendment Act 5 of 2009, we are sure that the law makers did not provide such a remedy to the complainant in a complaint case, who is also a victim. It is not a case where the law makers provided concurrent remedies to the complai....