2019 (2) TMI 2077 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the petitioner-accused has participated in the proceedings effectively and has not raised a single finger about the jurisdiction, now he cannot contend that the Court below was not having any jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It is well settled principles of law that a Court which is not containing any jurisdiction, if it passes an order, the said order is nullity in the eye of law. It is pure question of law whether an objection is raised or not, it is the duty of the Court to verify as to whether the Court is having any jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal or not. The Court gets jurisdiction only if the said Court is having an authority to pass such orders. In that light, the said contention does not stand and the same is rejected. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the order of acquittal, an appeal lies before this Court and as such the said order is nullity. On close reading of the Section 378(b) of Cr.P.C., it clarifies that against an order of acquittal, an appeal lies before the High Court. The admitted fact is that an appeal has been preferred before the District Court and the same has been entertained. Under such circumstances, the order passed is a nullity and the same is unsustainable in law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that he may be given liberty to file an appeal before this Court by giving the point of limitation which has been consumed under wrong proceedings as per Article 114 of the Limitation Act. The said period is also going to be covered in this behalf. Keeping this liberty, the respondent/complainant to file an appropriate proceedings before this Court. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining an appeal against the order of acquittal.
2. Validity of the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No. 195/2013.
3. Interpretation of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) regarding appeals in case of acquittal.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenges the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City, where the accused was convicted for dishonoring a cheque issued for a hand loan. The complainant approached the court after the accused failed to repay the loan and the cheque was dishonored. The Fast Track Court convicted the accused and imposed a fine, leading to the present appeal.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the appeal against the order of acquittal should have been filed before the High Court, not the District Court. The petitioner argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, rendering the judgment null and void. The respondent, however, contends that the error was merely an irregularity, not illegality, and that the Court below reached the correct decision based on the evidence presented.
3. The Court analyzed Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., which specifies that appeals against orders of acquittal should be filed before the High Court. Since the appeal was erroneously filed before the District Court, the judgment passed by the District Court is deemed invalid. The Court also considered the possibility of allowing the complainant to file a fresh appeal before the High Court within the appropriate limitation period, as per Article 114 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Fast Track Court was set aside, and the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed.