2021 (2) TMI 1341 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of revision petition - appeal would lie under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. or not - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 14 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case also against the judgment of acquittal the complainant had wrongly approached the learned FTC-VII and FTC-XIII instead of approaching this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. However both the parties contested the matter before the said FTC-VII and FTC-XIII which matter also ended in acquittal of the accused. Therefore there are judgments of acquittal by both the Trial Court as well by the Sessions Judge s Courts in the matter. Thus in either way the challenge if any the complainant intends to make against the impugned judgments of acquittal can by no stretch of imagination be through a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and it is only under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. in the form of a criminal appeal. Considering the fact that despite there being a specific provision for challenging the acquittal order under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. since the complainant once again initiated and proceeded on revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. instead of an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. and more importantly much time has been taken by the petitioner in his attempt claiming that he would convince the Court in the light of the judicial precedents that the present revision petitions are maintainable by imposing cost the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of these two revision petitions with liberty to file criminal appeals be allowed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to try the matter.
3. Correct legal recourse against judgments of acquittal.
4. Imposition of cost for withdrawal of revision petitions.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C:
The complainant filed two Criminal Revision Petitions against the respondent challenging the acquittal judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Courts. The respondent contended that only an appeal would lie under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The Court examined a previous order in a similar case and concluded that revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable against judgments of acquittal. The Court noted that the complainant wrongly approached the Sessions Judge's Courts instead of filing a criminal appeal before the High Court, as mandated by law. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the revision petitions with a cost of ?10,000 payable by the revision petitioner.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court to try the matter:
The Court emphasized that a judgment passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is considered null and void in the eyes of the law. The judgments of acquittal by the Sessions Judge's Courts were deemed nullities due to the lack of jurisdiction to try the matter. The Court held that the correct forum to challenge acquittal orders would be before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The Court granted the complainant an opportunity to file criminal appeals against the acquittal judgments before the High Court.

Issue 3: Correct legal recourse against judgments of acquittal:
The Court clarified that the complainant's attempt to proceed with a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. instead of filing an appeal under Section 378(4) was misconceived. Despite the specific provision for challenging acquittal orders under Section 378, the complainant pursued revision petitions, leading to unnecessary delays. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the revision petitions and directed the complainant to file criminal appeals within three weeks before the High Court, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Issue 4: Imposition of cost for withdrawal of revision petitions:
Considering the time consumed and the misconception of law by the complainant, the Court imposed a cost of ?10,000 on the revision petitioner. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the revision petitions with the condition of payment of the imposed cost within ten days. The impugned judgments of acquittal by the Sessions Judge's Courts were set aside, granting the complainant the liberty to challenge them through criminal appeals before the High Court.