A learned Single Judge of this Court as per the orders impugned in these proceedings, as rendered in Crl.L.P.Nos.683/2016 and 635/2013, has held that the appeal against acquittal in complaint proceedings for offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable before this Court and that proper remedy of the petitioners is to prefer an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court concerned in terms of the provisions contained in the proviso to S.472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitions filed under S.378(4) seeking leave of this Court to institute Criminal Appeal for impugning judgment of acquittal of the accused for the above said offence are not maintainable before this Court.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court (P.Bhavadasan, J.) in the case in Shibu Joseph & Ors. v. Tomy K.J. & Ors., reported in (ILR 2013 (4) Ker. 866 = 2013 (4) KHC 629), has held that an appeal against acquittal of an accused in complaint proceedings as in the instant one as envisaged in S.378 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before this Court and the proper remedy of complainants aggrieved by such acquittal is to prefer an appeal against acquittal before the Session Court in terms of the provisions contained in the proviso to S.372 of the Cr.P.C. Whereas another learned Single Judge of this Court (K.Harilal, J.), took a contrary view on the same point in the case in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Damodaran, reported in (2013 (4) KLT 547), and held that criminal appeal in such cases is maintainable before this Court, provided leave in that regard is obtained as envisaged in S.378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

3. The present petitioners have also filed complaints alleging offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused persons concerned and those complaints have ended in acquittal. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners had preferred petition under S.378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave of this Court to institute criminal appeal for challenging the judgments of acquittal of the trial court. The leave petitions in that regard filed by the present petitioners are CrI.L.P.No.683/2013 and CrI.L.P.No.635/2013. Those Criminal Leave Petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court following the ratio decidendi laid down by the Single Bench decision rendered in the aforecited reported decision in Shibu Joseph & Ors. v. Tomy K.J. & Ors. reported in ILR 2013 (4) Ker. 866 and it was held that the remedy of the petitioners herein is to approach the appellate sessions court by instituting criminal appeal as aforestated.

4. Later, in view of the divergence in the judicial opinion in the aforecited Single Bench decision, the matter was referred to the Division Bench of this Court for authoritative pronouncement in the matter. Thereupon, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Omana Jose v. State of Kerala, reported in (2014 (2) KLT 504), held that the appeal before the appellate sessions court concerned is not maintainable and that the proper remedy of a complainant, who is aggrieved by such judgment of acquittal of the trial court in complaint proceedings, is to file a petition under S.378(4) of the Cr.P.C. to secure leave of this Court so as to institute criminal appeal for impugning such judgment of acquittal. Thereby the Division Bench of this Court in Omana Jose’s case supra has affirmed the view rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Ltd.’s case supra and had overruled the contra view rendered in Shibu Joseph’s case supra.

5. The orders dismissing the present Crl.L.P.Nos.683/2013 and 635/2013 have been rendered by this Court on 4.11.2013 and 30.10.2013 respectively. It is thereafter that the Division Bench of this Court has rendered its judgment in Omana Jose’s case supra on 11.4.2014. The petitioners herein were advised that, in view of the alter