9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1319 - HC - Indian LawsConstruction and interpretation of essentially two provisions of the Code - Section 372 - Section 378 - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 - victim - acquittal with leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. as per Section 384 read with 385 Cr.P.C. Held that - It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the means or sentence legis of the legislature - The victim s right is thus no way controlled by Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and there is nothing to infer any requirement of leave u/s. 378(4) Cr.P.C. to file appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (against acquittal or conviction of accused for a lesser offence or for inadequate compensation), but for at best to say when against same acquittal two appeals filed one by other than victim under Section 378(4) and one by the victim under Section 372 Cr.P.C. the proper course is to withdraw and call for the matter before the Court of Session to the High Court to decide both at a time by it by common disposal or under Section 381 Cr.P.C. the High Court by special order transmit the appeal before it to the Court of session where other appeal is pending for common disposal, the power of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. in this regard also enables to subserve the ends of Justice and to avoid conflicting findings; like, in case and counter case, and for no such provision even specifically provided like in Section 210 Cr.P.C. of police case and private complaint case. Time limitation to file appeal for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act - Held that - the period of limitation provided for conviction to appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. equally to apply to appeal against acquittal, in case of any confusion from Article 114 and 115 of the Indian Limitation Act regarding different periods of limitation for appeal against conviction and acquittal. Coming to decide what is the procedure to be adopted for an appeal against acquittal before the Court of Session for not specifically provided for by any of the amended provisions of Cr.P.C., the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. itself by a close reading clarifies to adopt the procedure for appeal against conviction under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before Court of Session as laid down in Sections 380-385, 387-389 Cr.P.C. - legislative silence conveys signals and thus it is the duty of the interpreter to interpret the meaning and for that the interpretation and construction have same effect by identifying the legislative intent as part of duty of the Court since the legislative authorities are functuous officio after the legislation is passed. In interpreting an Act the proper course is the first instance to examine the language of the Statute and to ask what is the natural meaning influenced by the considerations derived from the previous state of the law and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered to see if the words of the enactment will bear an interpretation in conformity with the view. The appeal is made over to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam by this Special Order under Section 381(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. either to decide or to made over to any of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge of the Sessions Division to issue Bailable Warrant against the accused-respondent either directing the police or if they file any memo of non-availability of men from such non-availability - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 3. Service of summons and notices in appeals. 4. Interpretation and application of Section 372 Cr.P.C. and Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 5. Procedural aspects of appeals against acquittal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cognizance of the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was cognized under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 204 Cr.P.C. The trial was conducted under the summons procedure applicable at the time, despite subsequent amendments mandating summary trials. The court clarified that Judicial and Metropolitan Magistrates are competent to try such cases summarily without specific empowerment from the High Court due to the statutory mandate of Section 143(1) of the N.I. Act. 2. Appeal Against Acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.: The complainant appealed against the acquittal judgment under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., with leave granted on 11.07.2005. The appeal was admitted, and summons were issued to the respondent (accused) and the State. The court discussed the procedure for appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for notice to the accused and the possibility of deciding on merits if the parties fail to appear, as per the principles laid down in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. and Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P. 3. Service of Summons and Notices in Appeals: The court elaborated on the service of summons under Section 144 of the N.I. Act, which allows summons to be served by speed post or courier. The court can declare summons duly served if there is an endorsement of refusal or non-delivery. The court also discussed the procedures for issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants if the summons are not served. In the present case, despite attempts to serve summons by post and courier, the respondent was not served, leading to the issuance of a bailable warrant. 4. Interpretation and Application of Section 372 Cr.P.C. and Section 437-A Cr.P.C.: The court highlighted the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which provides an independent right to the victim to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. This right is absolute and does not require leave, unlike Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. should be filed before the Court of Session. Section 437-A Cr.P.C. mandates obtaining bonds from acquitted accused to ensure their appearance in higher courts if required. 5. Procedural Aspects of Appeals Against Acquittal: The court discussed the procedural aspects of appeals against acquittal, including the issuance of warrants under Section 390 Cr.P.C. and the application of Section 144 of the N.I. Act for service of summons. The court reiterated that procedural rules should be interpreted to subserve the purpose of substantial law and ensure justice. The court also emphasized the importance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in securing the presence of the accused in appeals. Conclusion: The appeal was made over to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, with directions to issue a bailable warrant against the accused, allowing for execution through an Advocate-Commissioner if necessary. The court emphasized the need to comply with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. while disposing of the appeal, ensuring the accused's appearance in higher courts if required. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the victim's right to appeal under the amended provisions of the Cr.P.C.
|
