2014 (9) TMI 1136 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal - Section 378 of NI Act - whether an acquittal order can be challenged under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or special leave is required to prefer an appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C.? - Held that - the complainant in the proceedings under Section 138 N.I.Act cannot be considered victim in the letter and spirit of the definition of Section 2 (wa) of the Code and definition of injury under Section 44 IPC cannot be imported into Section 138 N.I.Act. In every such proceedings at first instance every complainant considers / claims himself / herself a victim . The complainants in these proceedings cannot be taken at par with those who put criminal law into motion to bring the offenders to book at whose hands they have sustained injury as defined in Section 44 IPC. The changes in Cr.P.C. were for victims who were the worst sufferers in a crime and did not have much role in the Court proceedings. The remedy available to the complainants under Section 138 N.I.Act against order of acquittal is only to seek special leave before filing an appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. before the High Court. In the instant case the appellant has not sought any such leave - appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an appeal against an acquittal order in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or if special leave to appeal must be sought under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. vs. Special Leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the appellant, aggrieved by the acquittal orders in complaint cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, can file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or must seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The appellant's counsel argued that the amendments to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which introduced the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., entitled the appellant as a complainant-cum-victim to prefer appeals against acquittal orders under Section 138 N.I. Act. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contended that the proper remedy was to file a Special Leave Petition under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

2. Divergent Views from Various High Courts:
Different High Courts have taken varying stances on this issue:
- The Kerala High Court in 'Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Ltd. vs. T.Krishnakumar' held that a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) includes a 'complainant' in a Section 138 N.I. Act case, thus allowing appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
- The Calcutta High Court in 'National Plywood Industries vs. State of West Bengal' also supported this view, interpreting the definition of 'victim' liberally.
- The Jharkhand High Court in 'Mahesh Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Jharkhand' similarly concluded that complainants in Section 138 N.I. Act cases have a right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
- Conversely, the Bombay High Court consistently held that complainants in private complaints ending in acquittal are not entitled to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., as seen in 'Ganesh Bandu Badgujar vs. Mangalabai Ashokbhai Patel'.
- The Rajasthan High Court has conflicting decisions, with some cases supporting appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and others requiring special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 'M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. vs. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd.' concluded that complainants must seek special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

3. Supreme Court Precedent and Legislative Intent:
The Supreme Court in 'Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration)' held that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an acquittal order only to the High Court, not the Sessions Court. Although the scope of Section 372 Cr.P.C. was not explicitly considered, this decision implies that special leave is required for complainants in private complaints.

4. Analysis of Amendments and Legislative Intent:
The amendments to Cr.P.C. (effective from 31.12.2009) introduced the definition of 'victim' and provided them the right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The intent was to empower victims who previously had no role in criminal proceedings. However, this did not extend to complainants in Section 138 N.I. Act cases, who already had a statutory remedy to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The complainants in these cases are not 'victims' in the traditional sense intended by the amendments.

Conclusion:
The remedy available to complainants under Section 138 N.I. Act against acquittal orders is to seek special leave before filing an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The appeals filed by the appellant without seeking such leave are dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant may file special leave petitions to challenge the acquittal orders, with the period spent in the current proceedings excluded in considering any delay.