K. Harilal, J.

The interesting question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is, whether an appeal against acquittal of the accused in a complaint instituted under Section 190(a) read with section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') would lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the amendment inserting proviso granting the right of appeal to 'victims' in the above Section? In a larger perspective, the question is, whether an appeal against acquittal of the accused, by the complainant who has suffered loss or injury, in a case instituted on complaint made under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. would lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the amendment inserting Section 2(wa) and the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. defining "victim" and granting right of appeal to him?

2. The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in CC.No.79/2010 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod and the first respondent herein is the accused therein. The above complaint was filed under Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the NI Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the first respondent not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Revision Petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.298/2010 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod Division (Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Kasaragod) under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. In that appeal, the maintainability of the appeal under Section 372 was challenged by the 1st respondent/accused. After hearing both parties on the question of maintainability, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on a finding that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

3. While dismissing the appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge held that an appeal against acquittal of the accused in a complaint alleging the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act will not lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as the proper remedy of appeal has already been provided under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, with the special leave of the High Court.The learned Sessions Judge, further observed that on a bare reading of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that this section nowhere specifies that 'victim' also includes complainant in a complaint case instituted under Section 190(a) of the Cr.P.C. In Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. the word used is 'victim' and in Section 378(4) the word used is 'complainant' and this section applies to the complaint case. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the said judgment dismissing the appeal on the question of maintainability.

4. Sri. V.T. Reghunath, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the findings regarding the maintainability in the judgment under challenge is illegal and unsustainable in view of the proviso to Section 372 and the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.PC. According to the learned counsel, the court below did not correctly apply its mind on the meaning of the word 'victim' defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. "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. The holder of the cheque who has suffered loss by the acquittal of the accused is to be determined as both 'Complainant' and 'Victim'. Even though, he is the complainant, he is a person who has suffered loss also. So, the right of appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court is available to the Complainant in a prosecution under Sec