The High Court disposed of a criminal revision against an order of acquittal in a cheque bounce case, holding the revision not maintainable as appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. was the proper remedy.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.252 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
On the basis of a private complaint given by the petitioner herein stating that respondents 1 and 2 herein issued cheques and the same were bounced, attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, has numbered it as C.C.No.264 of 2002. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-9 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, by his judgment, dated 04.12.2003, found respondents 1 and 2 hereinaccused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, acquitted them of the said offence. Heard.
Against the order of acquittal passed by the Court below, an appeal, as provided for under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., is maintainable, but not the Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
Further, it has to be remembered that as this is a Revision against the order of acquittal of the accused, the scope of the Revision is very much restricted. Even if this Court ultimately holds that respondents 1 and 2 herein are guilty of the offence with which they are charged, this Court can only remand the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal, but cannot convert the said finding of
acquittal into conviction.
In those circumstances, I see no merits in this Criminal Revision Case and the same is accordingly dismissed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 20th January 2011 DR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against an order of acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when appeal under Section 378
Whether the High Court has the power to convert an order of acquittal into conviction in a criminal revision?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
