2014 (4) TMI 1202 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of Acquittal - what exactly is the meaning of the term victim in S. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Construction and interpretation of essentially two provisions of the Code - Section 372 - Section 378 - whether the complainant in a complaint case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is a victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code, as amended by Act No.5 of 2009? Held that - Before the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the remedy of the complainant in a case instituted on complaint against the order of acquittal of the accused was to file an appeal before the High Court under S. 378(4) provided special leave to appeal was granted by the High Court. S. 378(4) continues in the Code even after the amendment brought out by Act 5 of 2009, by which the definition of victim and a proviso to S. 372 of the Code were inserted. Drastic changes were made in S. 378 by Act 25 of 2005 and even at that time, S. 378(4) was not amended. It cannot be assumed that the Parliament was not aware of the remedy to file an appeal only to the High Court provided under S. 378(4) to challenge an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon complaint. Before the amendment, in a case instituted on police report, the victim could challenge the order of acquittal only by filing are vision under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the introduction of the definition of victim in S. 2(wa), the victim in a case instituted on police report can prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. No special leave to appeal is required in the case of an appeal filed under the proviso to S. 372. The expression victim requires an interpretation in the context of the provisions in Sections 372 and 378 to exclude the complainant in a complaint case, who is also the victim, from the purview of the definition of victim under S. 2(wa). The principles of harmonious construction and the principle that one section in a statute cannot be used to defeat the provision in another section would enable the Court to come to such a conclusion alone. Such an interpretation would make the textual interpretation to match with the contextual. In the present case, since the Sessions Court entertained the appeals and confirmed the acquittal, it is necessary to set aside the judgments rendered by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the judgments in Crl. A. No. 727 of 2012 and 728 of 2012 are set aside - The remedy of the petitioners is to file appeals under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court with special leave to appeal - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an appeal would lie to the Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against acquittal of the accused in a case under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Interpretation of the term "victim" under S. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Applicability of S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases instituted upon complaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The judgment addresses conflicting decisions on whether an appeal against acquittal under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies before the Sessions Court or the High Court. In Sree Gokulam Chit's case, it was held that such an appeal lies only before the High Court under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conversely, Shibu Joseph's case held that the complainant, being a victim as defined in S. 2(wa) of the Code, could file an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372. The Division Bench was called to resolve this conflict.

2. Definition of "Victim" under S. 2(wa):
The term "victim" is defined in S. 2(wa) as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The judgment delves into whether this definition includes complainants in cases under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court noted that while the definition is broad, the context in which it is used must be considered. The phrase "unless the context otherwise requires" allows for a different interpretation if the context necessitates it.

3. Applicability of S. 378(4) in Complaint Cases:
The Court analyzed S. 378 before and after its amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and Act 5 of 2009. S. 378(4) allows a complainant to appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case to the High Court with special leave. The judgment emphasizes that even after the amendments, S. 378(4) remains intact, indicating that the legislature intended for appeals in complaint cases to be filed before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.

Contextual Interpretation and Legislative Intent:
The judgment discusses the principles of statutory interpretation, including the importance of context and legislative intent. It references the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Acts and the relevant Law Commission Reports, which aimed to provide victims with certain rights and remedies. However, the Court concluded that these provisions were not intended to alter the established appellate procedures for complaint cases under S. 378(4).

Conclusion:
The Court held that the term "victim" in the context of S. 372 does not include complainants in complaint cases under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, such complainants cannot appeal to the Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372. Their remedy lies in filing an appeal to the High Court with special leave under S. 378(4). Consequently, the judgments of the Sessions Court in the present cases were set aside, and the complainants were directed to file appeals under S. 378(4) before the High Court. The time taken in prosecuting the appeals and revision petitions was excluded from the limitation period for filing such appeals.