Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents, Baliraja Krushiseva Bijotpadak Va Vitarak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. and its office bearers, alleging dishonour of a cheque. The trial court acquitted the accused. The complainant then preferred a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision was not maintainable against an order of acquittal, as the complainant ought to have filed an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC. The court heard arguments on maintainability. The applicant's counsel argued that the revision is maintainable as the High Court has inherent revisional powers to correct any illegality or perversity in the order. The respondents' counsel contended that the remedy of appeal is exclusive and revision is barred. The court examined the provisions and held that the revisional court can examine the legality and propriety of the acquittal order even if the complainant did not seek leave to appeal. The court found that the trial court's order suffered from non-application of mind and was perverse. Accordingly, the court allowed the revision, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court directed the trial court to decide the case afresh within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision against acquittal - Maintainability - Section 397, 401 CrPC - Section 378(4) CrPC - The court considered whether a revision lies against an acquittal order in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Held that the revisional court can examine the legality and propriety of the acquittal order even if the complainant did not seek leave to appeal, as the revision is maintainable under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC. The court relied on the principle that the High Court's revisional power is not barred merely because the complainant could have appealed but did not. (Paras 1-10) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Revision - Section 138 - The complainant, a cooperative marketing federation, filed a complaint alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent society. The trial court acquitted the accused. The complainant filed a revision before the High Court. The court allowed the revision, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that the revisional court can interfere if the acquittal is perverse or based on improper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable against an order of acquittal passed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the complainant did not seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to decide the case afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Revision against acquittal
- maintainability of revision
- Section 378(4) CrPC
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
- limitation for appeal
- inherent power of High Court
