Per D.N. Patel, J

1. The present application has been preferred under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.978/2004 (Tr. No.1851/2011) whereby the complaint case filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2. The complaint case was filed by the complainants-petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for allegedly committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4. There were several cheques which were given by the said opposite parties to the petitioners and they were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in their bank accounts.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though there is provision for statutory appeal under the newly inserted proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioners are the complainants, they have preferred this appeal for grant of Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a complainant. Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out several aspects of the matter based upon the evidence recorded by the trial Court and has submitted that Special Leave to Appeal may kindly be granted because there are several errors on the facts and law committed by the trial Court.

4. Counsel for the State-A.P.P. Has taken a preliminary objection as to statutory provision is provided under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, but Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to these petitioners and let the right of statutory appeal be exhausted and thereafter they may come to this Court. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended with effect from 31st December, 2009 based upon 154th report of the Law Commission of India. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that whenever statutory provision of preferring an appeal is given by law, the remedy must be exhausted first and, thereafter, they can approach this Court. The learned A.P.P. has also taken analogy from writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights and in those cases, normally the Hon'ble Supreme Court is sending the petitioners to the concerned High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge of the High Court, whenever Letters Patent Appeal is tenable, normally Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not granted. Similarly, counsel for the State has relied upon decisions rendered by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan Vs. State (F.B.) reported in 1986 PLJR, 274 that whenever there is a concurrent jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. both by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court, normally the anticipatory bail applications should be preferred before the Sessions Court. In view of this analogy, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that in the facts of the present case, the parties are not remedyless. They have a right to prefer an statutory appeal against the very judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi before the Sessions Court/Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Thus, the Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to these petitioners. Counsel for the State has also pointed out that whenever victim is also the complainant himself, then in all such cases statutory provision of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be resorted to and whenever the complainant is not the victim like the cases in which the complainant is Income-tax Officer or the officer of the Labour Department, or the Officer of the Food Adulteration Department, in all those cases, complainant and the victims are different persons, in those cases, instead of preferring an appeal under Sec