PAULOSE Vs. BAIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The leave petition is filed against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly acquitting the accused/first respondent in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Registry noted defect since the leave petition is filed beyond the period of limitation, without appending a petition for condoning the delay.

(2.) In his answer to the defect, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in Sobhanakumari K. v. Santhosh @ Pallan Shaji [2018(1) KHC 195], the Full Bench has observed that, after the Code of Criminal Procedures Amendment Act, 2008 came into force, the victim has a right of appeal against an order passed by the court acquitting the accused and no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the appeal. The only requirement being that notwithstanding the absence of any period, the victim must prefer the appeal after obtaining leave of the Court. Further, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the appeal must be filed within a reasonable period of 90 days from the date of the order appealed against. The defect was hence answered by asserting that there is no delay since the period of 90 days from the date of order ended during vacation and the leave petition was filed on the reopening day.

(3.) When the matter was taken up in court, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant in a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act falls within the meaning of 'victim' as defined in Sec. 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code and is entitled to file appeal based on the proviso to Sec. 372 of the Code.