IMPORTANT POINT
A victim has a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., and a revision petition is not maintainable if the victim has not pursued that appeal.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. The arguments of this case had commenced yesterday. However, a point of maintainability of the present revision petition has been raised which is required to be considered by this Court.

3. This case arises out of complaint case no C/1 Case No. 2137 of 2018 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the accused was convicted vide judgment dated 14.02.2020 against which he filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur which was numbered as Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 2020. By the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, the Criminal Appeal has been allowed and judgement of conviction has been set-aside. Consequently, the complainant who is also the victim, has filed the criminal revision challenging the judgement of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has referred to judgment dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Joseph Stephen and others versus Santhanasamy and others reported in 2020 Live Law (SC) 83 and submits that in the said case the order of acquittal was passed by the Appellate Court and the victim has filed revision before the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court framed various issues and ultimately held that the revision was not maintainable. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 10.2 of the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition may be held as not maintainable and be disposed in terms of paragraph 10.2 of the aforesaid judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Tuklal Yadav versus the State of Jharkhand and another with analogous cases passed by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2018 SCC Online Jhar 1193 and has submitted that various issues were framed by this Court at paragraph no. 8 and has referred to issue no. 4 as decided by Hon’ble Full Bench vide paragraph no. 46(4) and submits that the requirement of leave to appeal would arise only when the accused has been acquitted by the trial court. He has submitted that in the present case the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted by the appellate court and there is no question of any second appeal and therefore, revision is the only remedy. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 70 of 2010 and has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Stephen (Supra) and Mallikarjun Kodagaliv State of Karnataka reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752, the matter was again considered by framing the following issues: -

“This Court after having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties is required to consider as to whether the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joseph Stephen (Supra) and Mallikarjun Kodagali (Supra) will be said to have prevail over the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Tuklal Yadav (Supra).”

He submits that it has been ultimately held in paragraph 13 that, the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Tuklal Yadav (Supra) still holds good and, therefore, the petitions filed for seeking leave to file an appeal under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. was held to be maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment was referring to appeal to be filed by the victim/complainant where the order of acquittal has been passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case the peculiar circumstances is that the order of acquittal has been passed by the appellate Court and, therefore, the present criminal revision application is maintainable.

6. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no provision of any second appeal against the judgement of acquittal passed by the appellate court under the Cr.P.C. and