Full Judgment
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 92 days caused in preferring the appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate/Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in S.T.C.No.5 of 2006, a cheque bouncing case.
2. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court on 05.04.2016 in Crl.A (MD) No.99 of 2015 (S.Ganapathy and N.Senthilvel and batch cases) in paragraph 31 held as under:
31. Since, subsequent to the Full Bench reference, the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh interpreted these provisions, we are duty bound to follow the same to the extent it binds us. With that in mind and in the light of the above legal precedents and the discussion, we answer the questions posed by the Referral Judge as follows:-
(1) A victim of the crime, who has prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, has a statutory right of appeal within the limits prescribed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
(2) A complainant (in a private complaint), who is not a victim, has a remedy and can file an appeal in the event of acquittal of the accused after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C
(3) In a private complaint, even if the victim is not a complainant, he has a right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., but he has to seek leave as held by the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh.
(4) The term victim has been correctly interpreted by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ramphal and we are in agreement with the same.
(5) A victim (as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C does not cease to be a victim merely because he also happens to be a complainant and he can avail all the rights and privileges of a victim also and
(6) The decision of the Single Judge in Selvaraj holding that the term victim found in Section 372 excludes a complainant, is not legally correct and in a given case, a complainant, who is also a victim, can avail right granted under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner besides being a complainant he is also a victim because he suffered financial loss. It is a case instituted on a private complaint for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the circumstances, appeal against order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate ordinarily lies to the concerned competent appellate Court. So, appeal lies to the Court of Sessions. So that Court alone has to consider the delay condonation petition. If the delay is condoned, the appeal has to be taken on file and the appeal has to be numbered, if it is otherwise in order and it shall be disposed of according to law.
4. In the circumstances, this petition is ordered as under:
(i) This M.P. is not maintainable in this Court.
(ii) This M.P. is to be filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
(iii) This petition shall be filed before the said Court within one month from the date of receipt of the original petition together with connected papers from this Court.
(iv) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to return the present petition together with connected papers to the petitioner.