SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 2431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Usman s/o. Rasul Tamboli
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2013
Decided On: 5th December, 2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.S. SHINDE, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. G.R. INGOLE, APP for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. V.C. SOLSHE, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138 - Indian Penal Code, Section 420 - Appeal against acquittal. - Where trial Court acquitted accused from both charges and appeal against filed by State was dismissed therefore complainant still can challenge acquittal as for as it relates to offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by filing appeal under Section 378(4) of Code. - Though a number of illegalities appear to have been committed before the trial Court, it does appear that the applicant ought to have a right to challenge the order of acquittal passed in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by filing an appeal, as contemplated under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant would file an appeal challenging the order of acquittal in the case that was instituted upon his complaint. Needless to say that the applicant shall be at liberty to do so.

       The revision application is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such, with liberty to the applicant to file an appeal challenging the order, in so far as it relates to the acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

       

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent, admitted and decided finally.

2. Because of the clubbing of the two cases, one in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the other in respect of an offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a peculiar situation has arisen. The case, in respect of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, was instituted upon a police report and apparently, on the applicant's - who is the original complainant - own application, the case in respect of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was ordered to be merged with the case in respect of offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. The learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 12.07.2007, acquitted the accused i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein, in respect of both the aforesaid offences.

Treating this acquittal to be an acquittal in a case instituted upon police report, the State of Maharashtra appealed to the Court of Session, Osmanabad, but the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal.

The State, apparently, has not taken any steps after dismissal of the appeal, but now the applicant, who is the original complainant, has approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application.

3. The grievance of the applicant is that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered, whether or not, the case in respect of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been proved or not. In other words, according to the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge failed to examine the correctness of the order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate with respect to the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Though a number of illegalities appear to have been committed before the trial Court, it does appear that the applicant ought to have a right to challenge the order of acquittal passed in respect of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by filing an appeal, as contemplated under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant would file an appeal challenging the order of acquittal in the case that was instituted upon his complaint. Needless to say that the applicant shall be at liberty to do so.

5. In view of this, the Revision Application is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such, with liberty to the applicant to file an appeal challenging the order, in so far as it relates to the acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ordered accordingly.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top