<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (3) TMI 600 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197433</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a substantive victim&#039;s right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and the appeal lies to the court where an appeal ordinarily lies from conviction. Section 2(wa) defines &quot;victim&quot; broadly to include a person suffering loss or injury, as well as a legal heir or guardian. This victim-centric remedy operates independently of Section 378(4), which continues to govern the complainant&#039;s remedy in its own field. The amendment was intended to strengthen victim rights and provide an effective remedy without requiring a victim in a complaint case to seek leave before the High Court. The victim&#039;s appeal before the Sessions Court was held maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2018 12:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 600 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197433</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a substantive victim&#039;s right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and the appeal lies to the court where an appeal ordinarily lies from conviction. Section 2(wa) defines &quot;victim&quot; broadly to include a person suffering loss or injury, as well as a legal heir or guardian. This victim-centric remedy operates independently of Section 378(4), which continues to govern the complainant&#039;s remedy in its own field. The amendment was intended to strengthen victim rights and provide an effective remedy without requiring a victim in a complaint case to seek leave before the High Court. The victim&#039;s appeal before the Sessions Court was held maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>