Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a victim who is also the complainant in a complaint case can prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether the remedy is confined to Section 378(4) and Section 378(5) of that Code.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 was inserted as a general right of appeal for victims, but the Code separately provides a special procedure for appeals against acquittal in complaint cases under Section 378(4), subject to special leave and the limitation prescribed by Section 378(5). A complainant in a complaint case is therefore governed by the special appellate provision and cannot invoke the general victim-appeal route in Section 372 so as to render Section 378(4) and Section 378(5) redundant. On a harmonious construction of the provisions, the term "victim" in the proviso to Section 372 does not include a complainant in a complaint case.
Conclusion: The appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 was not maintainable. The lower appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, and the complainant's remedy lay only under Section 378(4) and Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case, the special leave procedure for appeals against acquittal under Section 378(4) and Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 excludes reliance on the general victim-appeal right under the proviso to Section 372.