Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 501 (RAJ)

Amit Sahu v. Dasrath Sukhla

2023-02-13

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2023
ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, Udaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent No.1, alleging therein that the respondent No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the petitioner and in lieu thereof, he gave two cheques amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively. The cheques given by the respondent were returned with the endorsement of insufficient funds. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act. The learned trial court vide order dated 29.01.2018 convicted the respondent No.1 to undergo imprisonment of 6 months (simple imprisonment) and directed to pay a fine of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation. 4. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 29.01.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Court rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding it to be non maintainable. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court has committed an error while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. She also submits that as per Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., if a person is aggrieved of the order for acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, then the appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 6. Since, in the present case, the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation and the sentence awarded in the present case, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, but the Sessions Court has rejected the same holding it to be non maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. For proper adjudication of the case, Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:- "372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. For proper adjudication of the case, Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:- "372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force: [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.]" 9. A bare perusal of the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. shows that if the sentence and compensation awarded by the trial court are inadequate, then an appeal shall lie. 10. It appears that the learned Appellate Court has not taken note of the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. in the correct perspective and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner being not maintainable. 11. In view of the clear provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C., the appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court has committed an error while passing the order dated 30.07.2022. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the revision petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court for deciding it afresh on merit. 13. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 03.03.2023.