The Kerala High Court has held that a complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 possesses a statutory right to challenge an acquittal by filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court clarified that such a complainant cannot circumvent this remedy by invoking the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.
Justice K. Babu delivered the judgment while dismissing two criminal revision petitions filed by a complainant who sought to assail the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court.
Procedural History
The petitioner had filed two private complaints before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, alleging commission of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Magistrate convicted the accused in both cases.
However, the Additional District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, allowed the appeals filed by the accused, set aside the convictions, and recorded acquittals.
Instead of preferring statutory appeals against the acquittals, the complainant approached the High Court through criminal revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
At the threshold, the Registry raised an objection regarding maintainability. It questioned whether revision was an appropriate remedy when an order of acquittal had been passed in a complaint case.
Whether the Complainant Is a “Victim” Under CrPC
The Court examined whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. The provision defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act or omission for which the accused has been charged.
Justice K. Babu observed that in cheque dishonour cases, the payee or holder in due course suffers financial loss when the cheque is dishonoured.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial (M/s) v. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (4) KHC 189]. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act falls within the definition of a “victim.”
The Supreme Court further clarified that when a complainant also qualifies as a victim, the person may invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave to appeal. The High Court reiterated that this right of appeal is substantive and unconditional. It places the victim on equal footing with the accused, who enjoys a statutory right of appeal under Section 374 CrPC.
Appeal Available, Revision Barred
The Court concluded that a complainant alleging an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act may file an appeal either under Section 378 CrPC or under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Since the Code provides a statutory appellate remedy, the complainant cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Where an appeal lies, revision does not lie.
Accordingly, Justice K. Babu dismissed the criminal revision petitions. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy under the Code or the Sanhita.
Case Details
Case Title: Liji v. State of Kerala and connected matter.
