IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'victim' under the BNSS requires a direct link between the loss suffered and the accused's actions, which the appellant failed to establish.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, for short) by the appellant, who claims to be a victim, challenging the judgment of the Special Court, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram dated 24.01.2024 in C.C. No.20 of 2011.

2. When this appeal was moved, notice was issued to the respondents, who were the accused persons before the Special Court. On behalf of the second respondent/A1, Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam appeared and opposed the very maintainability of this appeal, on the premise that the appellant cannot be considered as a victim, in terms of its definition under the BNSS. In the circumstances, the maintainability was heard as a preliminary question.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the second respondent/A1 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the 5th respondent/CBI.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of acquittal in the above referred Calendar Case is completely against the weight of evidence and law, which necessitates the appeal. Learned counsel would essentially point out that the appellant is a victim, who is entitled to file an appeal in terms of the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS. According to the learned counsel, a person who suffers physical injury, mental trauma and who had suffered economic disadvantage, all will fit into the category of a victim, thus entitling him to the benefit of the proviso to Section 413. On facts, it was submitted that, it was the appellant who first intimated the anomalies to the then Bank Manager of the State Bank of India, based upon which he preferred a complaint to the CBI, leading to the registration of the instant crime. Thus, according to the learned counsel, though the Manager concerned is the de facto complainant in the legal parlance, appellant is the one who triggered such complaint and hence, he can claim the status of a victim. It was submitted that the appellant was a Professor and the third accused is a business man, who was his student. The third accused approached the appellant for financial assistance, specifically for offering a property for availing a loan from the State Bank of India. The third accused had other debts as well. In order to help the third accused, the appellant offered one of his properties towards security for a loan in favour of the third accused. However, the appellant was cheated and the loan was obtained in the name of the appellant, portraying him as the principal borrower, as against the understanding that he will only be a surety. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that accused nos.1, 2 and 3 colluded and the third accused designedly chose not to repay the loan, with an ulterior motive that the appellant’s property will be proceeded against. Accordingly, the appellant’s property was proceeded against and in that sense of the matter, he suffered serious economic loss/disadvantage, which qualifies him to claim the status of a victim. A person who has suffered financial loss or economic disadvantage is the victim of a crime, Therefore, the present appeal is quite maintainable, is the submission made by the learned counsel.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) would submit that the appellant was only a witness and he cannot claim the status of a victim. The appeal is therefore not maintainable. It was also pointed out that the complaint by the then Bank Manager before the CBI was not triggered at the instance of the appellant. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the appellant has to settle his issue with the third accused otherwise, and not by filing the instant appeal.

6. Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the second respondent/A1 would first invite the attention of this Court to the definition of ‘victim’, as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also to Section 2(y) of the BNSS, to point out a subtle disti