2013 (12) TMI 1656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s/Defendant: Mr. Sachin Risbud, Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.N. Muley, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 2 ORDER A.M. Thipsay, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. The applicant is the original accused. He was being prosecuted on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l was filed purportedly under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. Thus, the appeal had been filed by claiming that the original complainant was a victim, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. The proviso to Section 372 was inserted by Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Amendment Act, 2008 (5 of 2009)], with effect from 31-12-2009. The proviso was inserted wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht to file an appeal, as contemplated under Section 378(4) of the Code, such a complainant could not have filed an appeal claiming to be a 'victim'. Consequently, the appeal filed by him before the Court of Sessions was not at all maintainable. The proceedings before the Court of Sessions were a nullity. The trial and the order of allowing the appeal is to be treated as 'non-est'. ....