Victim can now directly appeal against acquittal before Sessions Court: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today said that heavy pendency was preventing appeals against acquittals from being heard for years together before making it clear that victims of crimes —including ones in cheque bounce cases — could now cut delay by directly appealing before the Sessions Court.

In a significant judgment aimed at relieving litigants of procedural delays and the courts of mounting pendency, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that victims could directly move the Sessions Court without first seeking leave to appeal – a procedural hurdle previously required when approaching the high court.

Justice Brar’s ruling, in line with the Supreme Court’s view, is significant as it says such appeals by victims no longer need prior permission.

“This court is clogged with thousands of cases filed under Section 378(4) of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal against judgments of acquittal. Today itself 10 cases involving a leave to appeal, out of 43 listed in the motion list, were put forth before this Bench. One of them pertains to the year 2016. However, arguments have not been addressed till date,” Justice Brar asserted.

The court added that a majority of these cases pertained to acquittal emanating from complaints filed in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the NI Act with disputes involving comparatively lesser amounts.

Justice Brar asserted: “While every case is important to the Bar and the Bench, more often than not, these cases are not taken up for years due to the heavy pendency, where matters pertaining to life and liberty as well as criminal appeals and revisions take precedence due to their urgent nature and relatively higher stakes.”

The court added: “The Supreme Court in allowing the victims to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions without the need to obtain a special leave had “given a glimmer of hope to the many litigants who are in an endless wait of being heard and their cases being decided in reasonable dispatch.”

Justice Brar added it would be justifiable to say the approach taken was rooted in pragmatism as it acknowledged the real life experience of the litigants with an aim to make it less vexatious. “Needless to say, in the future, an appeal by the victim against acquittal or the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused shall lie only before the Court of Sessions in both State cases and those emanating from private complaints,” the Bench added.

Chandigarh