Disposed¶6

Jitan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2026Acq. App.(C)/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. not required for a victim who is not the complainant — Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 relied on (paras 34, 35, 76); proviso to S.372 CrPC; S.2(d) CrPC definition of complaint; Art.115(b) Limitation Act 1963; appeal against acquittal under S.138 N.I. Act; acquittal dated 05.12.2023 by S.D.J.M., Jamtara in PCR Case No.862 of 2019; appeal lies before the court below itself; I.A. No.1962 of 2024 disposed of; liberty to work out remedy in accordance with law; Jharkhand High Court; Acquittal Appeal (C) No.01 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law; I.A. No.1962 of 2024 stands disposed of. ¶6

Jitan Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Acquittal appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law; I.A. No.1962 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-victim, who is not the complainant, was required to obtain leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. before appealing against the judgment of acquittal (I.A. No.1962 of 2024) +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 752 (paras 34, 35 & 76 of which were quoted), no leave to appeal is required to the victim.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

In the present case the appellant is the victim and, as such, no leave to appeal is required; the victim who is not the complainant need not apply for or obtain leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶5

Key takeaways

Since the judgment of acquittal was passed by the S.D.J.M., Jamtara, the appeal will lie before the court below itself.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (C) No.01 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand, Rajesh Kumar, J., decided 02.04.2026) — Appeal by the victim, Jitan Das, against the acquittal of accused Uttam Das under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (acquittal dated 05.12.2023 by the S.D.J.M., Jamtara in PCR Case No.862 of 2019). An application (I.A. No.1962 of 2024) sought leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 752 (paras 34, 35 & 76 quoted), the Court held that a victim who is not the complainant is not required to apply for or obtain leave/special leave to appeal against acquittal: the proviso to Section 372 CrPC confers the right irrespective of complaint status, while Section 378(4) is confined to orders of acquittal in cases instituted upon a complaint. Since the appellant was the victim, no leave was required; and as the acquittal had been passed by the S.D.J.M., Jamtara, the appeal lies before the court below itself. The acquittal appeal and I.A. No.1962 of 2024 were disposed of, granting liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

2026:JHHC:9310

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (C) No.01 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Jitan Das son of Late Chhote Lal Das, aged about 60 years, resident of Pandeydih, P.O.+P.S.- Jamtara, District – Jamtara. …. Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Uttam Das son of Late Chhotan Lal Das, resident of village - Pandeydih, P.O.+P.S.- Jamtara, District – Jamtara. …. …. Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P. ----

¶11

12/Dated: 02^nd April, 2026

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgement of acquittal dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with PCR Case No.862 of 2019 whereby the accused namely Uttam Das has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶14

3. An interlocutory application being I.A. No.1962 of 2024 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal in terms of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

4. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 , no leave to appeal is required to the victim.

¶16

Paragraph Nos.34, 35 & 76 of the said judgment are relevant which

¶17

are quoted herein-below :-

¶18

“34. On the third question, the Full Bench noted that if the victim restricts the appeal to the grievance to inadequacy of the compensation or punishment for a lesser offence, it does not become an appeal against acquittal but the appeal is really directed against “any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal” within the meaning of Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thus, no question of taking special leave arises. The Full Bench took the view that for the purposes of Section 378(4) CrPC a victim who is not a complainant will not come within the purview of that section and would not be required to take recourse to the provision of special leave as provided therein. It was held : (Bhavuben Dineshbhai case, SCC OnLine Guj para 33)

¶19

“33. Therefore, in the case before us, the legislature while conferring the right of appeal upon the victim, who is not a

¶20

2026:JHHC:9310

¶21

complainant, not having imposed any condition of taking leave or special leave, we cannot infer such condition and impose the same upon the victim, although, the legislature was quite conscious of existence of such provision in case of an appeal by a complainant and has retained that provision without consequential amendment thereby making its intention clear that the provision of special leave is not applicable to an appeal preferred by a victim against acquittal if he is not the complainant.”

¶22

The third question was then answered in the following words : (SCC OnLine Guj para 36

¶23

“36. … If the victim also happens to be the complainant and the appeal is against acquittal, he is required to take leave as provided in Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code but if he is not the complainant, he is not required to apply for or obtain any leave. For the appeal against inadequacy of compensation or punishment on a lesser offence, no leave is necessary at the instance of a victim, whether he is the complainant or not.”

¶24

In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court made an artificial and unnecessary distinction between a victim as a victim and a victim as a complainant in respect of filing an appeal against an order of acquittal. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not introduce or incorporate any such distinction. …

¶25

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. 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 Cr.PC is concerned.”.”

¶26

5. Thus, in the present case the so-called appellant is the victim and as such no leave to appeal is required. Further, the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the S.D.J.M., Jamtara and as such the appeal will lie before the court below itself.

¶27

6. In that view of the matter, the present acquittal appeal is, hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶28

7. I.A. No.1962 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶30

Dated: 02^nd April, 2026 Amar/Uploaded on 08.04.2026 Page | 2

¶31

Acquittal Appeal (C) (S.J.) No.01 of 2024

Jitan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahavir Rajwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Rohan Kumar Alias Roshan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhalo Mahto Allias Vishal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhukar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Pramanik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anarashi Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand