Vishal Goyal Vs M/S Sai Steel Industries and Ors.

Fo r the reasons mentioned in t h e application, the same is allowed and delay of 113 days in filing the app l ication for leave to appeal is condoned.

¶15

Main case

¶16

Th e present application has been p r eferred under Section 378(4) of the Code o f Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave t o appeal against the judgment o f acquittal dated 08.02.2019 passed by the l e arned Sub Divisional Judicial M agistrate, Amloh in a case stemming from complaint No.152 dated 01.10. 2 012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable I n struments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶17

Th e complaint (supra) was filed o n the ground of dishonour of

¶18

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

2

¶20

238-1 CR M -A-2540-2019(O&M)

¶21

cheque amoun t ing Rs.5,00,000/- each. After assessing all the material available on th e record, the learned trial Cour t acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment d ated 08.02.2019. 3. Th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of S ections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., conclu d ed that the victim has a right t o file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. b efore the Court of Sessions. S p eaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held: “ 7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to se e and can be elaborated as follo w s: Firstly , the victim of a crime mu s t have an absolute right to pr ef er an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any co n dition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 13 8 of the Act, i.e., a payee or t he holder of a cheque is a pe r son who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a p erson who is charged of the o f fence, namely, the accused, wh o se cheque has been dishonour e d. Secondly , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par wit h the right of an accused wh o has suffered a conviction, wh o , as a matter of right can pr ef er an appeal under Section 37 4 of the Cr.P.C. A person convi c ted of a crime has the right to p refer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and no t being subjected to any condit i ons. Similarly, a victim of a

¶22

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

3

¶24

238-1 CR M -A-2540-2019(O&M)

¶25

cri m e, whatever be the nature o f the crime, unconditionally mu s t have a right to prefer an app e al. Thirdly , it is for this reason that t h e Parliament thought it fit to ins e rt the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any co n dition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, wh i ch expression also includes t h e legal representatives of a de c eased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an o rder of acquittal, the State, thr o ugh the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the co m plainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course su c h an appeal is with the leave o f the court. However, it is not al w ays necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an ap p eal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an ap p eal, the insistence on seeking s pecial leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 37 8 (4) of the Cr.P.C. would be co n trary to what has been inte n ded by the Parliament by ins e rtion of the proviso to Section 3 72 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly , the Parliament has n o t amended Section 378 to cir c umscribe the victim’s right to p refer an appeal just as it has wit h regard to a complainant or t h e State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament h as inserted the proviso to Se c tion 372 so as to envisage a su p erior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned the r ein as compared to a complain a nt.

¶26

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

4

¶28

238-1 CR M -A-2540-2019(O&M)

¶29

Fifthly , the involvement of the St a te in respect of an offence un d er Section 138 of the Act is con s picuous by its absence. This is b ecause the complaint filed u n der that provision is in the na t ure of a private complaint as p e r Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. an d Section 143 of the Act by an e x press intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in t h e matter of trial of such a de e med offence tried as a crim i nal offence. Therefore, the co m plainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 re a d with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.”

¶30

Th e refore, in view of the judgmen t rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present a pplication seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions J u dge, Fatehgarh Sahib with a direction to treat the same as an appeal file d under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and ent r ust the same to appropriate Cou r t for its disposal on merits. 5. Th e Registry is directed to send t h e complete paper-book and the record of t he case to the learned Sessi o ns Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib forthwith.

¶31

Di s posed of accordingly. Pending m iscellaneous applications, if any, also stand d isposed of.

¶32

03.09.2025 Sumit Gusain

¶33

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶34

Whether s p eaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether re p ortable : Yes/No

¶35

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vishal Goyal v. M/S Sai Steel Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Goyal v. M/S Sai Steel Industries and Ors.

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

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajkumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jatinder Kaur Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Heena @ Hina Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajinder Singh Virk and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Iqbal Singh Tung Vs State of Punjab and Others