Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, directors and a company, were convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 26 July 2011 for offences under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on dishonour of two cheques totaling Rs.14,35,000. They filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the conviction and also seeking a declaration that sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are unconstitutional. A Division Bench initially heard the matter and on 5 November 2012 delivered a judgment holding that prayer clause (b) (declaring Section 376(b) and (c) as unconstitutional) could not be granted. The matter was then placed for hearing on the remaining prayers. The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-complainant. The court examined the constitutional challenge to Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC, which provide for appeals against acquittal in certain cases. The petitioners argued that these provisions violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court, however, upheld the validity of the provisions, finding them to be within the legislative competence and not discriminatory. The court noted that the classification between cases where an appeal lies against acquittal and those where it does not is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. The court dismissed the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC. The judgment was pronounced on 24 July 2013 by a Division Bench comprising Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice S.B. Shukre.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Constitutional Validity - Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC - Challenge to provisions allowing appeal against acquittal - Petitioners convicted under Section 138 r/w 141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 challenged the constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC as violative of Article 14 and 21 - Court held that the provisions are not unconstitutional and are within legislative competence - Held that the right to appeal against acquittal is a valid classification and does not violate equality (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are unconstitutional and/or ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC, dismissing the challenge. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC
- Appeal against acquittal
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
- Section 141
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.2903 of 2011
S.C. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Shukre
Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Mr. Ravi Gurnani, Mr. Shardul Singh, Mr. Abhay Anturkar i/by Mr. Sudhan Y. Amare for Petitioners; Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for Respondent/State; Mr. Farhan Khan i/by Mr. R. Satyanarayanan for Respondent No.2; Mr. Chetan S. Damre i/by Mr. S.K. Shinde for Respondent No.3/UOI
Mr. Kumar J. Sujan, Mr. Anil Mehrotra, Indec Equipments Private Limited
The State of Maharashtra, M/s Saraf Enterprises, Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging conviction under Section 138 r/w 141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of conviction and declaration that Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC are unconstitutional.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were convicted by Metropolitan Magistrate for dishonour of cheques; they challenged the conviction and the constitutional validity of provisions allowing appeal against acquittal.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench on 05.11.2012 held that prayer clause (b) (declaring Section 376(b) and (c) unconstitutional) cannot be granted; matter placed for hearing on other prayers.
Issues
Whether sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 376 CrPC are unconstitutional and ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Respondents contended that the provisions are valid and within legislative competence.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC are not unconstitutional; they provide a valid classification for appeals against acquittal and do not violate Article 14 or 21.
Judgment Excerpts
In this Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court extensively heard the parties and delivered a judgment on 05.11.2012 holding that the prayer clause (b) of the Writ Petition cannot be granted.
The Petitioners were arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 alleging offences punishable under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Procedural History
Petitioners convicted by Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.07.2011. They filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2903 of 2011 challenging conviction and constitutional validity of Section 376(b) and (c) CrPC. Division Bench on 05.11.2012 held that prayer clause (b) cannot be granted. Matter then heard on remaining prayers and disposed on 24.07.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 376(b), 376(c)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 141
- Constitution of India: 14, 21, Part III
