Just a moment...
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, after insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a victim's appeal against an acquittal by a Magistrate should ordinarily be presented before the Sessions Court and not directly before the High Court, notwithstanding Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The amended proviso to Section 372 confers a right of appeal against acquittal on the victim, and such appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal lies to the Sessions Court. Section 378(4) continues to confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court in appropriate cases, but where jurisdiction is available before two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily approach the inferior court first unless exceptional grounds justify direct recourse to the superior court. The filing of the leave to appeal directly before the High Court was therefore treated as procedurally improper in the ordinary course.
Conclusion: The petition for leave to appeal was not entertained in the High Court and was returned for presentation before the Sessions Court; the complainant was directed to pursue the appeal there first.
Ratio Decidendi: After the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a victim's appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal should ordinarily be filed before the Sessions Court, and direct approach to the High Court is not the normal course where that remedy is available.