P.V. PONNAPPAN Vs. BALACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises in these two cases. These two cases are applications under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the complainant as not maintainable, which was filed under Section 372 proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure, protesting against inadequate compensation granted. The facts are not in dispute. The second respondent in both the cases is the same. He had issued two cheques, purported to be in discharge of his debt to the complainant totalling to Rs. 3,50,000/-. On deposit, the two cheques bounced and two complaints were filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon contest, the trial court of Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and the complainant was awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- only in each case. Keeping in mind that the total consideration covered by the cheques was Rs. 3,50,000/-, on the face of it the compensation granted was grossly inadequate, the complainant filed two appeal under Proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For better understand the issue at hand, Section 372 and section 378 (4) of Cr. P.C., 1973 are quoted hereunder :

(2.) I have heard the parties including the Public Prosecutor. On the first blush, the stand taken by the Sessions Court appears to be correct, but on closer scrutiny the situation is clearly distinguishable. In the substance, what the Division Bench has held is that if the Proviso to Section 372 Cr. P.C., 1973 which gives a right to the victims, is construed literally, a victim would have two remedies under the Cr. P.C as against acquittal of the accused persons. It could prefer appeal, in terms of Section 378(4) with the leave of the High Court or it could have preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court under Proviso to Section 372, without seeking leave. The Division Bench was of the view that such legislative intent being there, the only way to reconcile was to hold that the expression 'victim' as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr. P.C., would include a complainant and consequently Section 372 proviso would apply to complaint cases but only police case.

(3.) The first thing we have to keep in mind is the Division Bench was dealing with a case of acquittal, where apparently two remedies became available. One, with the leave of the High Court and the other, to the Sessions Court as a matter of right. It is in that situation, the Division Bench held that the expression 'victim' has to be given a limited scope to include 'complainant' in a complaint case. It is open for this Court to take a different view of the matter. But, however, we have to keep in mind what was said in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and others [AIR 1968 SC 647] referring to the famous statement of Earl of Halsbury LC in Quinn v. Leathem . I can do no better than to quote :