Complainant in Cheque Bounce Case Has the Right to Appeal Against Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Overturns Sessions Court Ruling

Sessions Court Cannot Dismiss Appeal Against Acquittal in NI Act Cases on Technical Grounds – In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that a complainant in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has the right to appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court and need not directly approach the High Court. Setting aside the order of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, which had dismissed the complainant’s appeal as "not maintainable," Justice S. Rachaiah held, "The complainant in a cheque dishonor case is a victim under the law and is entitled to challenge an acquittal before the appellate court. The Sessions Court erred in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds."

The case arose from a complaint filed by G. Shankar against Thomas Mani, alleging that a cheque issued by the accused had bounced. The trial court (Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna) acquitted the accused on May 16, 2013, citing lack of sufficient evidence. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.166/2013. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal as "not maintainable," relying on an earlier Karnataka High Court ruling, which held that a complainant in an NI Act case does not qualify as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.

Challenging this decision, the complainant approached the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the Sessions Court had wrongly denied him the right to appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

"A Cheque Bounce Complainant is a Victim Under Cr.P.C." – Karnataka High Court Clarifies Appeal Rights

Rejecting the Sessions Court’s interpretation, the High Court held that a complainant in a cheque dishonor case suffers financial injury and, therefore, qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.. Justice S. Rachaiah observed, "A victim is a person who has suffered loss or injury due to an act or omission for which the accused has been charged. A person whose cheque has been dishonored and who has been denied rightful payment clearly fits within this definition."

Referring to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., which grants a victim the right to appeal against an acquittal, the court stated, "The law does not differentiate between a victim of financial injury and a victim of physical injury when it comes to the right to appeal. The Sessions Court was wrong in holding that the complainant had no right to appeal against the acquittal of the accused."

The court emphasized that a complainant in an NI Act case has the same appellate rights as any other victim of a criminal offense and that denying such a right would leave complainants without an effective remedy against wrongful acquittals.

"Sessions Court Must Hear the Appeal on Merits" – High Court Directs Fresh Consideration

Taking a strong stance against procedural obstacles, the High Court ruled that the Sessions Court’s dismissal of the appeal was legally unsustainable and must be set aside. Justice S. Rachaiah directed, "The appellate court is bound to hear the appeal on its merits. It cannot dismiss an appeal on the ground of maintainability when the law explicitly provides a right to challenge an acquittal."

Setting aside the order of the Sessions Court dated May 4, 2016, the High Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. "The Sessions Court shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the appeal within six months," the court ordered.

"Judiciary Must Ensure No Victim is Left Without a Remedy" – High Court’s Final Observations on PSC’s Conduct

In a sharp critique of the Sessions Court’s approach, the High Court observed, "A legal system that denies a victim the right to appeal against an acquittal weakens public trust in justice. The judiciary must ensure that no victim, whether of financial fraud or otherwise, is left without a remedy."

The ruling establishes a crucial precedent in cheque dishonor cases and ensures that complainants are not deprived of their right to challenge an acquittal simply because the offense is financial in nature.

Date of decision: 24/02/2025