SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
B.A.Chandrashekar Setty, S/o Aswantha Narayana Setty Joint Managing Director, M/s.Vivek Limited - Appellant  
Versus 
State by Inspector of Police - Respondent 
Crl.R.C.No.889 of 2023
Decided on : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A.Nagarajan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sugendran, Addl.P.P., Mr.V.Ramamurthy, Mr.R.Sankara Kutralingam

The victim's right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is limited to acquittal or conviction for lesser offences, not for enhancement of sentence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 372 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - The revision petitioner challenged the dismissal of a condone-delay-petition for a 15-day delay in filing an appeal against the trial court's judgment in a cheating case. The trial court convicted the accused under various sections of IPC and imposed sentences to run consecutively. The appellate court dismissed the condone-delay-petition, stating the appeal for enhancement of punishment was not maintainable under Section 372. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 18)

(B) Right to Appeal - The victim has the right to appeal against acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, but not for enhancement of sentence. The appellate court found the appeal filed by the revision petitioner was beyond the scope of Section 372. (Paras 9, 19, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Joint Managing Director, filed a complaint leading to the conviction of several accused for misappropriation and cheating. The trial court sentenced the accused, and the petitioner sought to appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not challenge acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence, and thus dismissed the condone-delay-petition. (Paras 3, 27)

Issues: The main issues were whether the appeal for enhancement of punishment was maintainable under Section 372 and the jurisdiction of the appellate court to entertain such an appeal. (Paras 8, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 is limited to acquittal or lesser offences, and the appeal for enhancement of sentence does not fall within this provision. (Paras 19, 26)

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.800 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.No.630 of 2023, in dismissing the condone-delay-petition filed for condoning the delay of 15 days in filing appeal against the judgment passed in C.C.No.391 of 2017, dated 15.11.2022 by the Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CB-CID cases, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is the Joint Managing Director of the Company, namely M/s.Vivek Limited, and he lodged a complaint against the accused before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai and it was again forwarded to the CCB, Egmore, Chennai, for investigation. After conducting preliminary enquiry, the Sub-Inspector of Police, CCB, Egmore, Chennai registered a case in Crime No.607 of 2009 for the offences under Section 408, 420, 465 and 468 IPC against (i) Raja, Manager (A1), (ii) Tmt.Sheela Anand, Operations Head (A2); (iii) Karthikeyan, Mobile Phone in-charge (A3) and others of Vivek Ltd, Chennai. Even while the investigation was progressing, on the basis of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7176 of 2010, dated 01.04.2010, the investigation was transferred from Central Crime Branch (i.e. CCB), Chennai to the first respondent/Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Metro Wing, Egmore, Chennai-600 008, and in turn, the first respondent-Inspector of Police, after completion of the investigation, laid chrage-sheet before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Chennai, in respect of a cheating case in Chennai and CB-CID, Metro Cases, Chennai. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.391 of 2017. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after framing charges and after completing the trial, found that the respondents 2 to 7 herein colluded and sentenced all the accused as follows:

(i) Under Section 120-B IPC - six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment;

(ii) Under Section 408 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment;

(iii) Under Section 465 read with Section 109 IPC - one year rigorous imprisonment;

(iv) Under Section 468 IPC - three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, three months rigorous imprisonment;

(v) Under Section 471 read with Section 109 IPC - three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on all the accused to run consecutively by order dated 15.11.2022.

3. On being dis-satisfied with the inadequacy of the sentence and fine, the revision petitioner/P.W.1 filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.A.SR.No.630 of 2023 with a delay of 15 days in filing the said appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai dismissed the petition filed for condoning the delay, in Crl.M.P.No.800 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.No.630 of 2023, holding that the said condone-delay-petition is not maintainable, and thereby, the said Crl.M.P. was dismissed on 30.03.2023, against which, the present revision petition is filed before this Court by P.W.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on reviewing the financial statement for the quarter ending 30.06.2009 by the Manager (Accounts), Jainsons Head Office, it came to know that the revision petitioner's Luz (Chennai) Branch had made a gross loss of 22.50% below their cost when compared with the other Branch Offices. The physical stock verification was done at the petitioner/P.W.1's Branch and it was found that there was huge shortage of stocks and the stock deviation report confirmed huge loss of stock items, namely, Air-conditions (i.e. A/c), refrigerators, washing machines, televisions, LCD, Audio systems and DVD micro-wave ovens, mobile ph

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top