K.T. Sankaran. J.

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions were referred to the Division Bench in the light of conflicting decisions of this Court in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd.. Kasaraaod v. Damodaran N. and another : 2013 (4) KHC 395 = 2013 (2) KLT SN 99 Case No.126 = 2013(3) KLJ 3 and Shibu Joseph and others v. Tomv K.J, and others : 2013 (4) KHC 629 = ILR 2013(4) Ker. 866 = 2013(2) KLD 938, on the question whether an appeal would lie to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Sree Gokulam Chit's case, a learned single Judge of this Court held that an appeal would not lie before the Sessions Court and it would lie only before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Shibu Joseph's case, another learned single Judge held that the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being a victim as defined in Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging an order of acquittal. In Shibu Joseph's case, the learned single Judge referred to the decision in Sree Gokulam Chit's case. However, that decision was not followed on the ground that "the various provisions regarding the rights conferred on the victim were not considered" in Sree Gokulam Chit's case.

2. When these Criminal Revision Petitions came up before the learned single Judge who decided Sree Gokulam Chit's case, the Revisions were referred to the Division Bench as per the order dated 9.12.2013.

3. In the present Criminal Revision Petitions, the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam and the accused were acquitted. On appeal by the complainants before the Sessions Court, the acquittal was confirmed. The complainants in the cases have filed the Criminal Revision Petitions.

4. The contention that an appeal would lie against an order of acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is taken on the basis of the insertion of the definition of 'victim' in Section 2(wa) and insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 2008 (Act 5 of 2009). The expression 'victim' is defined in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:

"2. Definitions.- In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(wa) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir;"

5. Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. The proviso was inserted by Act 5 of 2009, which reads as follows:

"Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

6. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005).

7. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before its amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and after the amendment by Act 25 of 2005 read as follows:

"(Before amendment) S.378. Appeal in case of acquittal.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any ca