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 the applicant, as complainant in a complaint case ending in acquittal, was entitled to have the leave to appeal treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The application was examined in the light of the later authoritative ruling recognising that, in a complaint case, the complainant answers the description of a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that such victim may prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372. The earlier debate whether recourse lay only under Section 378(4) stood concluded by that ruling. Following the same approach adopted in subsequent decisions of the Court, there was no basis to take a different view in the present matter.
Conclusion: The leave to appeal was rightly directed to be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to be heard by the Sessions Court on merits.
Final Conclusion: The application resulted in a direction that preserved the complainant's appellate remedy against acquittal and required merits-based consideration before the competent appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case, the complainant is a victim for the purposes of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and may maintain an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court.