Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The bench of the Madras HC comprising of Justice MM Sundresh, Justice V Bharathidasan and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the appeal against acquittal of the accused in a cheque bounce case can be filed only before the High court under section 378(4) of CrPc.b
The bench observed that as against an order of acquittal passes by a magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will be lie only before the High court under section 378(4) of CrPc. In such cases, the complainant has to seek for special leave under section 378(5) of CrPc. The bench referred judgements of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Balal H., Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Mallikarjun Kodagali vs. State of Karnatka and observed that the decision rendered in these cases is Per-incuriam.
Further the bench held that those cases where the order of the sessions court was put to challenge before the High court, either by complainant or by the accused, the final orders have been passed by this court and it has become final inter-parted or has been acted upon, it cannot be reopened by virtue of this judgement.
The bench also held that the cases where the sessions court has reversed the order of acquittal passes by the magistrate and convicted the accused and this order has not become final or the same has not been acted upon, the accused person has to necessarily challenge the said order by filing a criminal revision petition before this court by quoting this judgement. And those cases where the sessions Court has reversed the order of acquittal passes by the magistrate and the same has been challenged by the accused before this court by way of revision petition and if the same is pending, the same should be treated as an appeal pending before this Court against the order of acquittal passes by the magistrate, by disregarding the order passed by the Sessions Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824