9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner herein had issued a cheque, which, on presentation, had bounced. Opposite party filed a complaint to prosecute the petitioners for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Acquittal of the petitioners was limiting assailed by the opposite party by filing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2012. For filing the appeal, opposite parry relied upon newly added proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. An argument was raised by the petitioners before the Court below that acquittal of the petitioners could not be assailed in an appeal as the only remedy available for the opposite party was to seek leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was stated before the Court below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'victim'. The word 'injury' has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that any word or expression, which has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but has been defined in the Indian Penal Code, shall have the same meaning so far Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. To fortify the above reasoning, reference can be made to section 2(y) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same reads as under: (y) words and expressions used herein and riot defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code. Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'injury'. Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The illustrations may be many, they cannot be put in watertight jackets. Suffice it to say that holder of the cheque is a victim and he can prefer an appeal by invoking proviso to section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity as the Court below had rightly entertained the appeal. Having expressed the above opinion, this Court uphold the impugned order, hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 8. Consequently, the application being CRAN 3690 of 2012 is also dismissed. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
