TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a victim can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an acquittal where the offence occurred before 31 December 2009 but the acquittal was recorded after that date; (ii) whether the victim must obtain leave to appeal before the High Court.
Issue (i): Whether a victim can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an acquittal where the offence occurred before 31 December 2009 but the acquittal was recorded after that date.
Analysis: The right conferred by the proviso to Section 372 is a substantive statutory right that accrues when the criminal court passes the acquittal, lesser conviction, or inadequate compensation order. The date of the offence is not the controlling date for maintainability. The proviso must be construed in a realistic, liberal, progressive, and victim-oriented manner, and the later judgment of acquittal gives rise to the victim's right of appeal.
Conclusion: The victim's appeal was maintainable, and the right could be exercised against an acquittal passed after 31 December 2009 even if the offence occurred earlier.
Issue (ii): Whether the victim must obtain leave to appeal before the High Court.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 creates an independent right of appeal and does not import the leave requirement found in Section 378(3) or the special leave requirement in Section 378(4). The legislative scheme distinguishes the victim's remedy from appeals by the State or by a complainant in a complaint case, and no additional condition can be read into the proviso by implication.
Conclusion: The victim was not required to obtain leave to appeal before filing the appeal in the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's orders were set aside and the victim's appeal was directed to be heard on merits by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a substantive and independent right that arises from the date of the acquittal or other qualifying order, and it is not conditioned by the date of the offence or by any leave requirement unless the statute expressly so provides.
TaxTMI 
