The High Court of Calcutta reiterated that the Complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NIA”) does not qualify as a “victim” under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “CRPC”) and therefore, in such complaint cases the only remedy to file an appeal is under Section 378(4) of the CRPC before the High Court and not under Section 372 of the CRPC before the Sessions Court.
Brief Facts:
A complaint under Section 138 of the NIA was filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the Petitioner. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrates. The Petitioner was acquitted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate found the Petitioner not guilty. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Learned Sessions Judge and the order of acquittal was set aside and the Petitioner was held guilty. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
This Court considered two questions of law in this present case. One is whether the Complainant under NIA is a victim under CRPC and if yes then whether the complainant is entitled to file an appeal under Section 372 of the CRPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that it has been settled by the Supreme Court that in a complaint case if an acquittal order has been passed, an application under Section 378(4) of the CRPC for special leave to appeal can only be filed in the HC and not the Sessions Court.
Observations of the Court:
With respect to whether the Complainant under NIA can be treated as a victim under CRPC, the Court observed Section 372 of the CRPC. It noted that post amendment, Section 372 of the CRPC allowed the victim to prefer an appeal against an acquittal order before a Court of appeal where ordinarily appeal would have lied against a conviction order. Based on this, the Court remarked that if the Complainant under NIA can qualify as a victim, then he has the right to file an appeal in the Sessions Court.
Relying on the Decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. P. Vijaya Laxmi v. Smt. S.P. Sravana and Anr. the Court expounded that a Complainant cannot qualify as a victim under the CRPC and is excluded from being qualified as a victim because in such cases Accused is not subjected to a charge. Therefore, the remedy is to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the CRPC and not under Section 372 of the CRPC. Even the Surpeme Court in the case of Subhas Chand had clarified the law point by opining that an appeal in such cases can only lie before the HC and not the Sessions Court.
The Court further observed that pre - 2009 amendments to the CRPC, the law point was that an appeal can be preferred under Section 378(4) of the CRPC in complaint cases before the High Court and the same is the position even post amendment. The Court further added that if Complainant is given the right to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 372 proviso or to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CRPC then he would have 2 remedies and such could not be the intention of the lawmakers. The Sessions Court and the HC do not have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by the complainant against acquittal in a complaint case.
With respect to Section 372 CRPC, the Court opined that this section provides the victim with the right to file an appeal only when the case is filed based on Police Report. When the case is arising out of a private complaint, the Complainant has only one remedy and that is to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of the CRPC.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the reasoning, the Court set aside the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge and allowed the present appeal.
Cause Title: Ms. Todi Investors v. Ashis Kr. Dutta & Anr.
Citation: CRR No. 3587 of 2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta
Decided on: November 03rd, 2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
