The Full Bench clarified the jurisdiction for appeals against acquittals in private complaints and emphasized the need to follow the correct legal procedures.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 & 401of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 04.11.2017 made in C.A.No.30/2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge of Namakkal reversing the judgment dated 30.11.2010 made in S.T.C.No.707 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Namakkal and set aside the same.)

1. The Revision Petition is filed by the accused in the private complaint filed against him for issuing a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-, without arranging with his bank to honour the same. The trial Court acquitted him. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred appeal before the High Court, same was transferred to the District Sessions Court. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the accused is before this Court.

2. Before adverting into the main petition, it is necessary to first deal with the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7641 of 2023 filed by the respondent P.S.Deivaraj, seeking leave of this Court to transpose him as the Criminal Revision Case. Also, to convert it into Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 30.11.2010 made in S.T.C.No.707 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Namakkal and treat his grounds of appeal in Crl.A.No.30 of 2007 laid before the Sessions Court as grounds of revision. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in K.Rajalingam v. Suganthalakshmi vide order dated 28.05.2020 reported in [2020 SCC Online Mad 1052] and the clarifying order by the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 16.07.2021.

3. Now, reverting back to the facts, P.S.Deivaraj filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Namakkal stating that R.Mani borrowed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/ from him on 01.02.2006 with a promise to repay the said loan amount with interest at the rate of 18% within five months and gave a post-dated cheque bearing No.866295 dated 01.07.2006. When the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. When R.Mani was put to notice about the return of the cheque and to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, he did not pay the money. Hence, R.Mani is to be tried for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, took cognizance of the offence and the complaint taken on his file as S.T.C.No.707 of 2010. The complainant (P.S.Deivaraj) subjected himself for examination as PW-1 and marked 7 exhibits. The accused (R.Mani) subjected himself for examination as DW1 and marked 5 exhibits.

5. The trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused vide order dated 30.11.2010. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred an appeal before the High Court along with a petition to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. This Court granted leave and took the appeal on file as C.A.No.400 of 2011, by admitting the appeal on 10.04.2012.

6. At this point of time, one of the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, appeal filed against the order of acquittal in a private complaint, a complicated question of law is involved regarding the jurisdictional Court for the victims, who lost the complaint before the trial Court. The doubt whether the victim to approach the High Court obtaining leave under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., or got a right of appeal as provided in proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. There are conflicting judgments of this Court. One judgment holding that the victim complainant has got no right to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., and to another judgment holding otherwise by declaring the remedy open to the victim, private complainant is to resort Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., by preferring appeal on getting leave of the Court. Hence, th