Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

?I am of the considered view that the term 'victim' found in the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C shall not include a victim, who is a complainant in a complaint case and that the term 'victim' used in the said Proviso shall be confined to the victims in cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint. In the case on hand, the criminal case was instituted on the file of the trial Court on a complaint made by the respondent/complainant. In fact, the offence is a non-cognizable offence and hence, there can be no other mode of institution of the criminal case than by preferring a complaint to the Magistrate. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As the case ended in acquittal before the trial Court, the remedy available to the respondent herein (complainant) was to approach this Court (High Court) under Section 378(4) within the period stipulated in Section 378(5) seeking Special Leave to file an appeal against acquittal. Instead of adopting such a procedure, the respondent herein (complainant) chose to prefer an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court and the learned Appellate Judge either without considering the scope of the Proviso to Section 372 or in an erroneous interpretation of the said provision, assumed jurisdiction and decided the appeal which went against the appellant herein (accused). The appellant is right in challenging the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Judge on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the respondent (complainant) who has approached a wrong Court with an appeal under Section 372 has chosen to prefer a revision against the judgment of the appellate Court expressing grievance over the alleged inadequacy of punishment. The appeal is bound to succeed and the revision is bound to fail.? (emphasis added)
372.?
25.(a) On the question as to who can be a legal heir to pursue the remedy under Section 372 Cr.P.C, the Full Bench answered as follows:-
?The object of the Act being the prevention of distortions of the criminal justice system, it is clear that the state interest is to prevent the subversion of justices in cases where the State chooses not to appeal an acquittal. This does not mean, of course, that the appeal procedure is open to anyone and everyone. The interest of preventing distortions and ensuring justice must be balanced ? as has been pointed out ? against the longstanding principles of criminal procedure that form the underlying legal context, such as the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the double presumption of innocence. This is the rationale for the class of persons who are competent to maintain an appeal has been restricted to victims, and their guardians and legal heirs. This aim of this limitation is to establish a threshold of proximity, which is used to achieve the balance between competing interests...?

27. The view taken by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court with reference to right of filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 as of right was not accepted by the Hon?ble Supreme Court. In its judgment in Satyapal Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [2015 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 219 (SC)], in para 11, it observed as follows:-

?The Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi after examining the relevant provisions under Section 2(wa) and proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., in the light of their legislative history has held that the right to prefer an appeal conferred upon the victim or relatives of the victim by virtue of proviso to Section 372 is an independent statutory right. Therefore, it has held that there is no need for the victim in terms of definition under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. to seek the leave of the High Court as required under Sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The said view of the High Court is not legally correct for the reason that the substantive provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. clearly provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment and order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by Cr.P.C. Further, Sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C. provides that for preferring an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal it is necessary to obtain its leave.?
Further, it also held thus :
?Thus, from a reading of the above-said legal position laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, it is abundantly clear that the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. must be read along with its main enactment i.e., Section 372 itself and together with Sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C. otherwise the substantive provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. will be rendered nugatory, as it clearly states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by Cr.P.C.