In a judgment examining the retrospective applicability of Supreme Court rulings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court operate retrospectively unless explicitly stated to be prospective. The ruling was delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel in a matter concerning the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
The Court was dealing with a challenge to an acquittal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohindergarh, in a cheque dishonour case. The appellant had erroneously invoked Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to file the appeal, accompanied by an application seeking leave.
During the hearing, reference was made to the recent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., which held that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and is entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4).
In rejecting the contention that the Celestium Financial precedent was inapplicable as the complaint in question predated its pronouncement, the Court held, “Conversely, a definitive pronouncement emanating from the Apex court, by its very nature, operates retrospectively, unless specifically directed otherwise. This fundamental distinction inheres in the very essence of judicial review: a judgment serves not as an act of legislative creation, but rather as an authoritative exposition and clarification of the existing law.”
Justice Goel observed that judicial decisions are declaratory in nature, serving to illuminate the correct understanding of the law from the point of its enactment, “It merely illuminates the true import and construction of a statute or provision, declaring its inherent meaning as it ought to have been understood and applied ab initio, from the precise moment of its legislative genesis. Consequently, its retrospective application becomes a jurisprudential imperative.”
Quoting from authoritative precedent, the Court further stated, “The logical corollary of this doctrine is that a judicial decision, particularly one articulating a seminal principle of law, extends its pervasive influence to all matters, irrespective of their stage of pendency across various adjudicatory fora.”
The judgment draws on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, reaffirming the principle that judicial overrulings operate retrospectively, save in cases involving res judicata or settled accounts.
Addressing the procedural question, the High Court clarified that the appeal should not have been filed under Section 378(4) CrPC at all. Notwithstanding this procedural infirmity, the Court declined to dismiss the appeal summarily:
“A summary dismissal solely on a procedural technicality would constitute an unwarranted wastage of precious judicial time and resources… Rather than dismissing the appeal in limine on a mere procedural infirmity, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the matter to the concerned Sessions Court.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that “The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahindergarh at Narnaul with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.”
Justice Goel’s opinion reasserts the principle that courts are “not to pronounce a new law but to maintain and expound the old one”. By treating the appeal as maintainable under the correct provision, the High Court has reinforced a jurisprudence that privileges substantive justice over procedural rigidity, ensuring that victims in cheque dishonour cases are not denied appellate recourse due to technical missteps.
Case Title: Raj Kumar vs. Rajender
Case No.: CRM-A-826-2025 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. S.K. Yadav
Picture Source :
