Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) IN this matter, I have heard the parties on the interpretation of proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C. in relation to Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. It is agreed position that as per the amended proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C. the victim has been given a remedy of appeal against every acquittal order passed by the magistrate Court and his appeal in such type of matters can be heard by the concerned Sessions Judge.
(2.) SECTION 372, Cr.P.C. was amended on 31.12.2009 by adding a proviso to it by Amendment Act 5 of 2009 (Section 29). Law of procedure may be applicable retrospectively as was held in the following rulings: (1) Union of India vs. Sukuruar, : AIR 1966 SC 1206, (2) Nayyar G.P. vs. Delhi Administration, : AIR 1979 SC 602, (3) Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of V.P., : AIR 1953 SC 394. The appellant -complainant has challenged in this appeal the acquittal order in Criminal Case or Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 which was passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 712/2010, whereby the learned lower Court acquitted the accused -respondent Amar Singh from the charge under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.
(3.) SUCH type of appeal could have been and should have been filed in the Sessions Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan first and only thenafter the aggrieved party could have challenged the order of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in this Court. So after hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that while Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., confers jurisdiction of hearing appeal against acquittal on the High Court, the amended proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. does so on the Sessions Court. But it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two Courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two Courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior Court are made out.;