Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the thoughtful consideration of this court the instant controversy involves following legal issues:

Firstly, whether appeal against any judgment of acquittal passed in a trial arising out a complaint case for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 is maintainable before the Sessions Court under proviso of section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure or the same lies before the High Court under the provision of section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure?
Secondly, what is the scope of suo moto authority of High Court under Section 397 read with 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure? and Thirdly, in what manner the suo moto authority of High Court may or should be exercised in the present case.

In view of above discussion in respect of the first issue framed herein before, the Court is of the view that the appeal against any judgment of acquittal passed in a trial arising out a complaint case for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 is not maintainable before the Sessions Court under proviso of section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the right to file such appeal falls only under the provision of section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

To deal with the second issue framed herein before as to what is the scope of suo moto authority of High Court under Section 397 read with 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it may be useful to recapitulate the language used in these sections. Sub-section (1) of Section 397 is as follows:

In the case of Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the question as to whether Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla, the then Judge of the High Court of Delhi, in exercise of inherent power, was justified in making certain observation regarding the authority of C.B.I. for launching and investigating a criminal case and directing the office of the High Court to register a case under the title, "Court on its own motion vs. State and CBI" so that he could exercise his discretionary revisional and inherent powers to call upon the CBI and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings of criminal case be not quashed. In that case, the C.B.I. had launched and was investigating a criminal case regarding allegation broadcasted by Swedish Radio Broadcast that bribes had been paid to senior Indian politicians and key Defence figures to win the contract awarded by the Government of India to the Swedish firm for arms order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court with elaborated discussion on various legal issues quashed the latter part of the order of Single Judge whereby he had taken suo moto cognizance under Sections 397, 401 read with 482 of the Code issuing show-cause notice to the CBI and the State. However, the relevant part of determination of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which may be useful for present controversy, is as follows:

128. Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the new Code are analogous to Section 435, 439 and 561(A) of the old code of 1898 except for certain substitutions, omissions and modifications. Under Section 397, the High Court possesses the general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it which the discretionary power when administered on administration side, is known as the power of superintendence and on the judicial side as the power of revision. In exercise of the discretionary powers conferred on the High Court under the provisions of this Section, the High Court can, at any stage, on its own motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities and irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. The words in Section 435 are, however, very general and they empower the High Court to call for the record of a case not only when it intends to satisfy itself about the correctness of any finding, sentence or order but also as to the regularity of any proceeding of any subordinate Court.