Complainant advised to seek remedy through appeal under the amended provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice K. Babu, addressed the procedural intricacies of pursuing a legal remedy against a judgment of acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court ruled that a Criminal Revision Petition is not maintainable in such circumstances, emphasizing the need for the complainant to pursue an appeal as provided under the amended provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The case involved the petitioner, Liji, who had filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging cheque dishonour. Despite the initial conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, the accused were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. Liji sought to challenge these acquittals through Criminal Revision Petitions.
However, the Kerala High Court clarified that under Section 401(4) of the CrPC, a revision against an appealable order is not maintainable. The judgment elaborated that the complainant, recognized as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC following amendments in 2009, has the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without the constraints of seeking special leave to appeal as required by Section 378(4).
Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in "Celestium Financial (M/s) v. A. Gnanasekaran," the High Court reaffirmed the victim's unconditional right to appeal against acquittal, a right that parallels the accused's right to appeal a conviction under Section 374 of the CrPC. The court highlighted the legislative intent to provide victims of cheque dishonour, a common yet significant economic offence, with a robust appellate mechanism.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petitions, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appeal mechanism. The court also assured that the time spent in revision proceedings would not count against the limitation period for filing an appeal, thus safeguarding the petitioner's right to seek justice through the appellate route.
Bottom Line:
A Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.PC is not maintainable against a judgment of acquittal in a complaint case alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as an appeal lies under Section 378 or proviso to Section 372 of Cr.PC.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 372 (Proviso), 378, 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Liji v. State Of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852614
