9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the application for Special Leave to Appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the dismissal of a complaint case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Issue 1: Statutory appeal vs. Special Leave to Appeal The petitioners sought Special Leave to Appeal u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing errors in facts and law by the trial Court. The State-A.P.P. contended that the statutory appeal provision u/s 372 should be exhausted first before approaching the High Court. The State emphasized that when the complainant is also the victim, the statutory appeal must be availed before seeking Special Leave to Appeal. Issue 2: Victim and complainant being the same person The petitioners, being both the victims and complainants, relied on certain decisions to support their application for Special Leave to Appeal. However, the Court noted that the statutory right to appeal u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the victims/complainants in such cases, rather than directly seeking Special Leave to Appeal u/s 378(4). Judgment: The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the petitioners, as victims and complainants, should first exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal u/s 372 before the Sessions Judge/Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. It was highlighted that in cases where the complainant and victim are the same, the statutory appeal should be preferred over seeking Special Leave to Appeal directly. The Court underscored the importance of following the judicial hierarchy and exhausting lower forum remedies before approaching higher forums. The refusal to grant Special Leave to Appeal was based on the principle of "ubi jus ibi remedium," indicating that the petitioners were not without a remedy under the statutory appeal provision u/s 372.
|
