© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday sent a challenge to an acquittal in a cheque-bounce case to the Sessions Court in Panchkula, holding that such appeals must now be heard by the Sessions Court rather than the high court. The direction follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that expanded the right of complainants in cheque-bounce cases to appeal as “victims”.
The case involved an application filed by Jasvir Singh. He wanted the high court’s permission to appeal against a July 1, 2023, order of a Kalka trial court that had acquitted Satpal, also known as Vicky, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This provision makes it a criminal offence to issue a cheque that is dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Singh had approached the high court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision requires a private complainant to first obtain the high court’s leave before appealing against an acquittal. But during the hearing, his counsel cited a new Supreme Court judgment in the ‘M/s Celestium Financial vs A Gnanasekaran’ case, delivered earlier this year, which changed the legal position.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that the complainant in a cheque-bounce case is a “victim” of the offence because they directly suffer the loss when the cheque is dishonoured. Under a 2009 amendment to the CrPC, victims can appeal an acquittal directly before the Sessions Court without needing permission from the high court. The Supreme Court said this right cannot be limited by conditions that apply to the State or to private complainants who otherwise need the high court’s leave.
The court said a person convicted of a crime can appeal as a matter of right, and the victim should enjoy a similar right. It noted that cheque-bounce cases are private complaints and the State is not involved, so the complainant must have a direct route for appeal.
Relying on this, Justice Manisha Batra held that Singh’s appeal should be treated as a victim’s appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC. She noted that the high court had recently applied this interpretation in the ‘Satish Kumar vs Jugal Kishore’ case, among others.
The high court, therefore, ordered that Singh’s appeal be sent to the Sessions Judge, Panchkula, who may hear it or assign it to another competent court. The high court said it had not examined the merits. Singh has been asked to appear before the Sessions Court on January 12, 2026. The Registry has been told to transfer the entire case record without delay.
