Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Manju Kawadiya vs Ghanshyam Sahu on 19 January, 2011
Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 (NOC) 326 (RAJ.), 2011 ACD 567 (RAJ), (2011) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 421, 2011 WLC(RAJ)(UC) 731, (2011) 3 CIVLJ 442, (2011) WLC (RAJ) 731, (2011) 1 NIJ 285
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
Manju Kawadiya
Versus
Ghyanshyam Sahu
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 875/2010
Date of Order : 19.01.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Anurag Shukla for the petitioner
Mr.SG Ojha for the respondent.
BY THE COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the non-petitioner.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that against the order of Special Judicial Magistrate, (Negotiable Instrument Cases) No.2 Udaipur, the appeal was filed by the complainant in the Court of Sessions, Udaipur who in turn transferred the appeal to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Udaipur. This revision petition arises for the reason that trial court acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and aggrieved by that order, the present respondent filed the appeal in the Court of Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur vide impugned order dated 12.10.2010, remand the case to the trial court and being aggrieved by that order the present petitioner has filed this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. the private complainant can only file the appeal in the High Court and the State Government can file the appeal against the order of acquittal in the District Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that as the complainant filed the appeal against the order of acquittal in the Court of Sessions and the same was accepted by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur who having no jurisdiction while exercising the powers under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.45/2010 suffers from illegality, impropriety or perversity, therefore, it requires to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the non-petitioner rebutted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3
I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of learned trial court and the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. as the complaint was registered as a private complaint under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the learned trial court acquitted the present petitioner Manju for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act against which complainant Ghyanshyam preferred the appeal which was accepted by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur who was having no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 is set aside.
[KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J.
Mamta