Live
- Polarised atmosphere in UP: Will communal discord shape voter behaviour in bypolls?
- 2nd T20I: Nitish Reddy, Rinku Singh hammer fifties as India post 221/9 against Bangladesh
- Women’s T20 WC: Harmanpreet, Smriti smash fifties as India post 172/3 against Sri Lanka
- Indian govt does not understand golf’s potential, says ex-India golfer Amandeep Singh Johl
- Vadodara driver faces legal action for violating emergency barricade on Atal overbridge
- Hacker 'selling' 3.12 cr Star Health customers’ data for $150K, company responds
- RG Kar tragedy: Doctors meet CBI officials, express dissatisfaction over first charge sheet findings
- No counting of votes unless you clean up your mess, Delhi HC tells DUSU candidates
- Rs 100 for Ayudha Puja has been increased to Rs 250 by KSRTC
- JD-U criticises Tejashwi Yadav over his absence during floods
Only HCs can hear appeals in cheque bounce cases
In a significant judgment, the High Court at Hyderabad has held that the complainant in cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 does not come under the ambit of a ‘victim’ under
In a significant judgment, the High Court at Hyderabad has held that the complainant in cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 does not come under the ambit of a ‘victim’ under
Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It also ruled that in such cases appeals against verdicts given by trial courts lie only with the High Court.
The division bench comprising of Justice P V Sanjay Kumar and Justice Shameem Akhter delivered this judgment recently while disposing of the petition filed by a woman Vijayalakshmi seeking quashing of a Criminal Appeal filed under Sec 372 of CrPC by her opponent before Metropolitan Sessions Judge (MSJ) court.
The appeal was filed questioning the order of the Special Magistrate (trial court) acquitting Vijayalakshmi in February 2016. Vijayalakshmi contended before the High Court that if there was any objection to the trial court judgment, the only option was to file an appeal under Sec 378(4) of CrPC in the High Court after taking its leave.
The learned single judge who heard this case found that there was divergence of opinion on questions of law and referred it to the division bench seeking an authoritative pronouncement on the issue.
The division bench settled the issue by its pronouncement that a complainant in a cheque bounce case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 does not come under the ambit of a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that Appeals in such cases lie only with the High Court and not MSJ courts.
