MAHAVIR PHOTOSTAT Vs. VINAYAK AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioner namely Vinayak Ahuja. Vide judgment dtd. 29/5/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, the said complaint was dismissed. The complainant chellenged the judgment dtd. 29/5/2013, vide an appeal under Sec. 382 read with Ss. 377 and 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner-accused moved an application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of maintainability. Vide judgment dtd. 9/12/2014, the said application was rejected and the appeal was held to be maintainable. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitoner places reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Tata Steel Ltd. vs. M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. and ors., 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1005 to contend that so far as the status of a complainant in a complaint case is concerned, the Amending Act No.5 of 2009 has not made any change. Even if the complainant 'is also the victim' only an appeal by special leave under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code is maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant also places reliance upon aforementioned judgment but argues that after the introduction of Amending Act No.5 of 2009 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complainant 'who is also the victim' as in a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act, is entitled to file an appeal under Sec. 372 of the Code before the Court of Sessions and that impugned order is just and legal and does not require any interference.