Negotiable instrument act

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 26 May 2021 This query is : Resolved
Accused convicted in trial court. aquitted by sessions court in appeal. Whether second appeal lies to high court or revision. Clarify with judgements if any

We have filed appeal before Madras High Court, but it is returened mentioning justice Anand Venkatesh Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.03.2020
Dated : 28.05.2020
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN and
The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Criminal Appeal Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Criminal Revision Case Nos.494
& 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019

stating that appeal does not lie only revision .Hence this query i am asking for any supreme court judgements

I have got madhya pradesh and kerala high court judgements that only appeal should be filed against aquittal

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parasram Yadav vs Pravin Soni on 6 September, 2019
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
1
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
Criminal Revision No.303/2016
Indore, Dated 06.09.2019
Mr. Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the
applicant / complainant.
The applicant has preferred this criminal revision
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as
the Code) against order dated 08.12.2015 passed by
learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (MP) in
Criminal Appeal No.589/2015 and Criminal Appeal
No.615/2015, whereby judgment dated 28.07.2015
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore,
District Indore (MP) in Criminal Case No.7893/2010
has been set aside; and the respondent / accused was
convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the provisions of Section 378 (1) (b) of the Code, the State Government may, in any
case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or
appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, or an order of acquittal
passed by the Court of Session in revision. Section 378 (4) of the Code provides that if such an order
of acquittal is passed in any case, instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application
made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of
acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
In the present matter, the applicant / complainant has not filed any application under Section 378
(4) of the Code for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions
Court in appeal. Therefore, the present revision application is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to argue on the point of
maintainability of the present revision.
Matter be listed after two weeks.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge rcp

Kerala High Court
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2785 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN Crl.A 131/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),
NORTH PARAVUR
JUDGMENT IN CC 872/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT- III, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------
PAULSON P.VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY
PAINADATH HOUSE, NAYATHODU KARA, ANGAMALY
NAYATHODU PO, PIN 683 572.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/:
------------------------
1. JAISON VARGHESE , S/O.C.J.VARGHESE
CHIRAMEL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.MVTRR 4/30/43/2389
MOOKOOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, PETTA JUNCTION
POONITHURA P.O.
2. M/S. WEST COAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JAISON VARGHESE
CHIRAMEL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.MVTRR 4/30/43/2389
MOOKOOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, PETTA JUNCTION
POONITHURA P.O., PIN-682 317.
3. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.ALI
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/41008301/ 1
ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.2785 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.872 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Aluva.
2. The accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of 5,00,000/-. Against the said
conviction and sentence, the accused filed appeal. As per judgment dated 4.8.2011 in Crl.A.No.131 of
2010, the appellate court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the said acquittal of the accused, the complainant before the trial
court has come up with this revision petition.
3. Heard.
4. In view of the provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 378 of the Code, the remedy of the
complainant in a complaint Crl.R.P. No.2785 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the trial court or the appellate court, is
to file appeal before the High Court after obtaining special leave. A Division Bench of this Court in
Omana Jose v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 504] held that the complainant in a case under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot challenge the order of acquittal before the Sessions
Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his remedy is only to
file an appeal to the High Court with special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In view of the above reason, this revision petition is not maintainable.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Needless to say that this
order will not take away the rights, if any, of the revision petitioner in seeking other remedies
available to him under law.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/04.11.2015
Revision vs By Adv. Dr.George Abraham
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/41008301/

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion clarifies the correct legal procedure following an acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act. When an accused is acquitted by a Sessions Court after being convicted in the trial court, the complainant's recourse is to file an appeal before the High Court. This appeal requires special leave, as per Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a revision petition is generally not maintainable in such cases. High Court judgments from Madras, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala support this position.

SHIRISH PAWAR, 7738990900 (Expert) 26 May 2021
Hello,

You have to file appeal to high court. You may have to seek leave.

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 26 May 2021
Against acquittal order complainant has to file appeal before H.C irrespective of fact that order of acquittal is passer by Magistrate Court or Session Court.

P. Venu (Expert) 26 May 2021
Yes the Appeal could be filed with special permission in the High Court in terms of the provisions of Section 378

378. Appeal in case of acquittal.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub- section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 26 May 2021
The complainant has to prefer an appeal against the acquittal order before high court only
As against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will lie only before the High Court, under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. In such cases, the complainant has to seek for Special leave under Section 378 (5) of Cr.PC.

Message likes : 1 times

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 28 May 2021
You will have to seek special leave of the High Court.
I agree with experts.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries