Victim in cheque bounce case entitled to appeal acquittal directly: HC

The observations came portion dealing with a victim’s exertion for assistance of peculiar permission to entreaty against the acquittal of an accused successful a cheque bounce case

Photo for representational intent only. iStock

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a court’s ruling explaining an important constituent of instrumentality is not treated arsenic caller law, but arsenic clarifying what the instrumentality has ever meant since its inception. As such, the rulings use to each cases, including those already pending earlier the courts.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted that judges bash not make caller laws. Their relation is to uncover and articulate the existent meaning of laws already successful place. A judicial declaration recognises a information that has ever existed, alternatively than inventing thing new. The ruling came arsenic the tribunal clarified further that a unfortunate successful cheque bounce lawsuit was entitled to entreaty acquittal straight without seeking permission to appeal.

Justice Goel added that judicial decisions laying down cardinal ineligible principles widen their effect to each matters, careless of the signifier of proceedings. “The judiciary’s relation is not to pronounce a caller instrumentality but to support and expound the aged one,” the tribunal remarked, portion emphasising that judges enactment arsenic interpreters, not lawmakers.

The observations came portion dealing with a victim’s exertion for assistance of peculiar permission to entreaty against the acquittal of an accused successful a cheque bounce case. The unfortunate was seeking the mounting speech of judgement dated March 5 passed by the Mohindergarh Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent-accused of charges nether Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice Goel held that it was “irrefutably established” by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court successful the lawsuit of ‘Celestium Financial’ that an entreaty against an acquittal successful a proceeding nether Section 138 of the NI Act, erstwhile preferred by the complainant, fell squarely wrong the scope of Section 372 of the CrPC.

Justice Goel added a complainant successful a cheque bounce lawsuit “unquestionably satisfies the statutory explanation of a ‘victim’ arsenic contemplated nether the CrPC, thereby vesting successful the complainant the unequivocal close to similar an entreaty nether Section 372 of the CrPC.

Consequently, Justice Goel ruled that the appeal, having been filed nether Section 378 of the CrPC —which provides the authorities with the close to entreaty acquittals — on with an exertion for permission to entreaty was “fundamentally unsustainable and not maintainable successful its existent procedural posture” successful airy of the Celestium Financial decision.

Justice Goel rejected the statement that Celestium Financial would not use due to the fact that the events successful question predated the ruling. The tribunal observed that portion laws passed by the legislature usually use prospectively unless stated otherwise, judicial decisions run retrospectively unless expressly limited.

“A definitive pronouncement emanating from the Apex court, by its precise nature, operates retrospectively, unless specifically directed otherwise. This cardinal favoritism inheres successful the precise essence of judicial review: a judgement serves not arsenic an enactment of legislative creation, but alternatively arsenic an authoritative exposition and clarification of the existing law. It simply illuminates the existent import and operation of a statute oregon provision, declaring its inherent meaning arsenic it ought to person been understood and applied ab initio, from the precise infinitesimal of its legislative genesis,” Justice Goel ruled.