TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....litan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") in C.C. No. 12614/2007 and C.C. No. 1 2499/2007, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881,(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act"). 2. Admittedly, after due trial, the said matter ended in acquittal of the accused therein, who is the present respondent, by its common judgment dated 19-10-2010. Challenging the said common judgment of acquittal, the complainant in the Trial Court preferred two criminal appeals under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Appeal No.868/2010 in C.C.No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sometime to make his further submission in that regard. Accordingly, the matter was taken up today. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who, in the first round, when the matter was called, was appearing through video conference, sought for a pass over of the matter stating that, his colleague would produce a copy of the un-reported order of this Court regarding maintainability of these petitions. Accordingly, the matter which was initially taken up in the beginning of the afternoon session was passed over and was taken up at the end of the session. Now, when the matter was taken up again, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference relied upon an order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C., but a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. would not lie. However, considering the request made by the petitioner before it, seeking liberty to prefer an appeal before the Court, this Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court -IV therein, gave liberty to the petitioner before it to prefer a criminal appeal after giving the benefit of time consumed under wrong proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. In the instant case also, against the judgment of acquittal, the complainant had wrongly approached the learned FTC-VII and FTC-XIII instead of approaching this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. However, both the parties contested the matter before the said FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the complainant approached the FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, wherein, the accused as a respondent also without raising any objection about the maintainability of the said appeals before the said Courts participated in its proceedings, I am of the view that the complainant be given an opportunity to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 10. At the same time, considering the fact that despite there being a specific provision for challenging the acquittal order under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., since the complainant once again initiated and proceeded on revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., instead of an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., and more importantly, much time has been taken by the petitioner in his attempt clai....