Against an order of acquittal, an appeal lies before the High Court. Filing an appeal before a Court without jurisdiction renders the order null and void.

B.A. Patil, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.195/2013.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner accused and the respondent-complainant.

3. The gist of the case of the complainant is that the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant are relatives. The petitioner-accused has approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs. 3 lakhs on 30.08.2008 and the same was handed over to the accused by the complainant. The accused promised to return the same within a period of two months but he did not repay and to discharge the said liability, he issued a cheque bearing No.478395 dated 30.10.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it was dishonored with a shara "account closed" on 27.11.2008. A notice came to be issued to the accused as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the N.I. Act' for short) and the said notice was also returned as 'not claimed'. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused and on recording the evidence of the complainant, the Court below acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.195/2013 before the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City. The said Court by entertaining the said appeal, has allowed the same and convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and out of fine amount, a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant and remaining sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the State. Now being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused is before this Court.

5. Though this case is posted for admission today, with consent of both the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

6. Several grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the main ground which has been urged by the learned counsel is that against the order of acquittal, the appeal would lie before the Hon'ble High Court but the complainant has preferred an appeal before the District Court, which is not having any jurisdiction. Though there is no jurisdiction, learned District Judge entertained the appeal and allowed the same by convicting the accused. The said order is nullity in law. As such, the same is not sustainable and prays to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that though the appeal lies to the Hon'ble High Court but it is only an irregularity not illegality. The Court below after appreciation of the materials placed on record, has come to a right conclusion. He further submitted that the petitioner accused, who appeared before the Court below has participated in all the trial and at that time, he has not raised a single finger by saying the Court is not having any jurisdiction and now at this belated stage, he cannot contend that the Court below was not having any jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the petitioner-accused has participated in the proceedings effectively and has not raised a single finger about the jurisdiction, now he cannot contend that the Court below was not having any jurisdiction.

10. It is well settled principles of law that a Court which is not containing any jurisdiction, if it passes an order, the said order is nullity in the eye of law. It is pure question of law whether an objection is raised or not, it is the duty of the Court to verify a