Complainant challenged acquittal in a cheque dishonour case via criminal revision. Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagali, the High Court held that appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act lies to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, affirmed the Sessions Court's view, and disposed of the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 383 of 2023
----Applicant
Versus
---- Non-Applicant
CAUSE TITLE DOWNLOADED FROM CIS PERIPHERY
………………………………………………………………………… For Applicant : Mr Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Non-Applicant: Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
08.01.2024
2
a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to High Court by invoking the powers under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Revision has been preferred.
“76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) CrPC. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint.
3
The word “complaint” has been defined in Section 2(d) CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 is concerned.”
4
Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. So, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed and this revision has no substance and the applicant is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to him in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Shoaib
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint case lies under Section 378(4) CrPC or under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Tarkeshwar Sahu
Amit Lilhare
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
