complainant in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC.

Bombay High Court: The application was preferred aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court by which the appeal against acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was admitted and further challenging the order by which the applicant’s plea that prior leave was needed for filing the appeal, was dismissed. The Sessions Judge had rejected the application on the ground that the appeal was filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the provisions of Section 378 CrPC were not applicable to the appeal. Moreover, no prior leave was necessary to be obtained by the complainant before preferring the appeal. Relying upon Top Notch Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Infosoft Systems reported at 2011 All MR (Cri) 2312 and Shantaram s/o Laxman Tande v. Dipak reported at 2011 All MR (Cri) 3473, the Court observed that the complainant in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC. As such the appeal filed before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the order of acquittal in a complaint case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was totally misconceived. The Sessions Judge should have returned the appeal for being presented before the appropriate forum, (Madhav Shriramji Khadse v. Rajiv Ramrao Ghatol, Criminal Application No. 1516 of 2010, decided on 21-6-2012)

Print Page