In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court addressed the procedural nuances concerning the appellate jurisdiction in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), particularly focusing on the complainant's right to appeal against acquittal orders. The court elucidated that a complainant in such cases can file an appeal before the Sessions Court, thereby not necessitating an approach to the High Court.
This clarification came in the context of a case where the complainant, Thoman Mani, had his appeal against an acquittal order dismissed by the Sessions Court on grounds of non-maintainability. The Sessions Court had directed the complainant to approach the High Court, relying on a prior decision which distinguished between a complainant under Section 142 of the NI Act and a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Justice S. Rachaiah, presiding over the matter, examined the relevant statutory provisions to determine the appropriate appellate forum. Section 378(4) of the CrPC stipulates that if an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant may, upon obtaining special leave from the High Court, present an appeal to the High Court. However, the court interpreted this provision to mean that the complainant is not mandated to directly approach the High Court if the appeal ordinarily lies to the Sessions Court against orders passed by the Trial Court or Magistrate.
Further, the court delved into the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which encompasses any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. This definition includes the complainant in NI Act cases, as they have suffered a financial loss due to the dishonored cheque. Consequently, under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. In the context of NI Act cases, where the Trial Court is a Magistrate's Court, appeals against convictions typically lie to the Sessions Court. Therefore, by extension, appeals against acquittals should also be directed to the Sessions Court.
The High Court's interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to provide an efficacious remedy to the complainant or victim without imposing unnecessary procedural hurdles. By allowing appeals against acquittals in NI Act cases to be filed before the Sessions Court, the court ensures that the complainant's grievances are addressed promptly and within the appropriate judicial forum.
This ruling also harmonizes with the broader judicial perspective on the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, inserted through the 2009 amendment, was aimed at strengthening the rights of victims by granting them a direct right to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offenses, or inadequate compensation. The Karnataka High Court's decision reinforces this victim-centric approach by recognizing the complainant in NI Act cases as a victim entitled to appeal under Section 372.
Moreover, this judgment addresses and clarifies the ambiguity arising from divergent judicial interpretations regarding the appropriate appellate forum in complaint cases under the NI Act. Some courts had previously held that appeals against acquittals in such cases should be filed before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, necessitating special leave. However, the Karnataka High Court's ruling delineates that, considering the complainant as a victim, the appeal should be directed to the Sessions Court under Section 372, thereby simplifying the appellate process.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's decision provides much-needed clarity on the appellate procedure in NI Act cases, affirming that complainants, recognized as victims under the CrPC, have the right to appeal acquittal orders before the Sessions Court. This interpretation not only aligns with the legislative framework but also ensures that the rights of victims are upheld within the criminal justice system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.