ABDULLA C.M Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these cases, the accused in the complaint preferred by the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Heard Sri. M. Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant and learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State. Though notice has been duly served on R1/accused, there is no appearance for that party.

(3.) Initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 30.10.2013 in Shibu Joseph and others Vs. Tomy. K.J. and others reported in 2013 (4) KHC 629 has held that in such cases involving private complaint, it is for the complainant, who is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, to prosecute Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court. Later, another learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a contra position. Thereafter, the resolution of the correctness of the abovesaid conflicting views rendered in the Single Bench verdicts was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 11.4.2014 in Omana Jose and another Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2014 (2) KHC 277 (DB), wherein the Division Bench has conclusively held that the remedy in such cases for a complainant, who is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, is not by institution of a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court concerned, but by filing a petition seeking special leave of this Court in terms of Sec. 378(4) of the Crimial P.C. and then to file Criminal Appeal before this Court, after securing such special leave, so as to challenge the said judgment of acquittal. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned judgments of acquittal in these cases were rendered on 30.9.2011 at a time when the above said ruling of the learned Single Judge in Shibu Joseph's case (supra) was regulating the law governing the field and that therefore, their appeals were perfectly maintainable before the Sessions Court at that time, even though a subsequent Division Bench judgment had held otherwise. It is pointed out that the Criminal Appeals filed by the petitioner herein before the Sessions Court in these cases have been now returned on 28.6.2014 as not maintainable in view of the subsequent Division Bench verdict in Omana Jose's case (supra) and that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court returning the appeals is not maintainable, may be set aside and that this Court may direct the Sessions Court to entertain the appeals on merits.