Supreme Court Recognizes Complainant as Victim, Grants Unconditional Appeal Right in Cheque Bounce Acquittals

·      
The
appellant, M/s. Celestium Financial, had extended several loans to the
respondents.

·      
The
respondents issued cheques to discharge their liabilities, but these cheques
were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

·      
After
serving statutory notices, the appellant filed criminal complaints under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

·      
The trial
court acquitted the accused, finding that the appellant failed to prove a
legally enforceable debt and that the accused rebutted the statutory
presumption under Section 139 of the Act.

·      
The
appellant’s attempts to appeal the acquittal were dismissed by the High Court,
which held that leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC was not
warranted.

Core Legal Issue

The central legal question was whether
the complainant in a cheque bounce case could bypass the requirement of seeking
special leave (as mandated by Section 378(4) CrPC for appeals against acquittal
in complaint cases) by invoking the status of “victim” under the
proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which allows a victim to appeal an acquittal as a
matter of right.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1.
Definition of ‘Victim’:

·      
Section
2(wa) of the CrPC defines “victim” as a person who has suffered any
loss or injury due to the act or omission for which the accused is charged,
including their legal heirs.

·      
The Court
emphasized that in cheque dishonour cases, the complainant (the payee or holder
of the dishonoured cheque) suffers economic loss and thus qualifies as a
“victim” under this definition.

2.
Legislative Intent and Statutory Provisions:

·      
The
proviso to Section 372 (inserted in 2009) grants victims the right to appeal
against acquittals, convictions for lesser offences, or inadequate
compensation, without the need for special leave.

·      
Section
378(4) CrPC, however, requires a complainant in a case instituted upon a
complaint to seek special leave to appeal an acquittal from the High Court.

3.
Harmonizing the Provisions:

·      
The Court
noted that while a complainant and a victim may sometimes be the same person,
the law now recognizes a broader right for victims to appeal.

·      
If the
complainant is also the victim (as in most cheque dishonour cases), they may
appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as a matter of right, without
needing to seek special leave under Section 378(4).

·      
The Court
clarified that the statutory rigours imposed on the State or complainant under
Section 378 should not be read into the victim’s right under Section 372.

4.
Precedents and Policy Considerations:

·      
The
judgment referred to previous Supreme Court decisions and Law Commission
reports emphasizing enhanced rights for crime victims, including the right to
appeal acquittals.

·      
The Court
favored a liberal, victim-centric interpretation, ensuring that victims of
financial crimes like cheque dishonour are not left remediless due to
procedural hurdles.

Key Ruling

The Supreme Court held:

“In
the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act,
the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a
cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to
Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then
elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.”

·      
Therefore,
a complainant in a cheque dishonour case who is also the victim can file an
appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without the
need for special leave under Section 378(4).

·      
The
impugned High Court order was set aside, and the appellant was granted liberty
to file an appeal within four months, with the assurance that limitation issues
would not be raised.

Implications

·      
This
judgment clarifies and strengthens the rights of victims in cheque dishonour
cases, ensuring they are not procedurally barred from appealing acquittals.

·      
It
harmonizes the procedural law with the legislative intent of empowering
victims, especially in financial offences where private complainants often
suffer direct loss.

·      
The
ruling is expected to have significant impact on cheque bounce litigation,
providing a more straightforward appellate remedy for aggrieved parties.

In
summary:

The Supreme Court has affirmed that complainants in cheque dishonour cases,
being victims of the offence, can appeal acquittals under the proviso to
Section 372 CrPC as a matter of right, without the procedural barrier of
seeking special leave under Section 378(4). This marks a progressive step
towards victim-centric justice in financial crime cases.