2026 (1) TMI 626 - HC - Income Tax

Victim's right to appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. upheld; leave application treated as appeal, referred to Sessions Court

Dominant issue: Whether a victim may file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. - Court applied Supreme Court authority interpreting Sections 372 and 378(4) ... Victim right to file an appeal u/s 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions - Right of Revenue to file Appeal against acquittal - trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused in a complaint u/s 276-B read with Section 278-B of Income Tax Act, 1961 for financial year 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., [2025 (4) TMI 1703 - SUPREME COURT] after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Further, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2025 (4) TMI 1179 - SUPREME COURT] held that operation of a newly enacted statute or rule must not be confused with the effect of a judgment. A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or provision thereof declares the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. On the contrary, it is the statute or the rule which is presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency before different forums since what has been enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the inception of the concerned statute or provision. What has been declared to be the law of the land must be held to have always been the law of the land. Thus, learned Sessions Judge, concerned, is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. Issues: Whether the application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against an order of acquittal should be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits.Analysis: The Court applied the legal principle that a victim has a statutory right to prefer an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, and considered the doctrine regarding prospectivity and retrospectivity of judicial decisions as explained in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. On that basis the Court concluded that the present petition for leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. must be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and should be placed before the Sessions Court for adjudication on merits. The Registry was directed to transmit the paperbook and record to the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith.Conclusion: The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is directed to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits.