Update 19.10.2018


Cr.P.C. Section 372  Proviso - Introduction of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. with effect from 31st December, 2009  - Whether a 'victim' as defined in the Cr.P.C. has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to 31st December, 2009 but the order of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court after 31st December, 2009? - Our answer to this question is in the affirmative -  The significant date is the date of the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - In a sense, the cause of action arises in favour of the victim of an offence only when an order of acquittal is passed and if that happens after 31st December, 2009 the victim has a right to challenge the acquittal, through an appeal -  Indeed, the right not only extends to challenging the order of acquittal but also challenging the conviction of the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation -  The language of the proviso is quite explicit, and we should not read nuances that do not exist in the proviso - Decision rendered in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and another, (2010) 12 SCC 599, has been misunderstood and misinterpreted and is clearly distinguishable on facts - Even otherwise, the decision has been rendered by a Bench of the two learned judges and while the view expressed therein certainly has great persuasive value but it would not be binding on a Bench of three Judges - Besides, the obiter dicta of this Court would not bind us. (2018)2 *Supreme Court e@Journal* 1482

 

 

Cr.P.C., Section 372 Proviso -  Must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence - Putting the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29th November, 1985, to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights - Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the one that we are presently concerned with -  Considered in this light, there is no doubt that the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence - On the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. (2018)2 *Supreme Court e@Journal* 1482

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

3/4 UPDATES A WEEK  

Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp

 

FREE with

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/-

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372, 378 - Right of questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim including the legal heir  as defined - Under Section 2(wa) of Code of Criminal Procedure, under proviso to Section 372, but only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required Under Sub-section (3) to Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (183) PLR (Del.)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372, 378(3), (4) - Victims of complaint-cases whose right to appeal have been recognized under proviso to Section 372, are not required to seek `leave' or `special leave' to appeal from the High Court in the manner contemplated under Section 378(3) & (4) of the Code. (173) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372, 378(4) - Victim - Complainant - Case - Appeal against acquittal - Complainant in a complaint-case who is also a `victim' and the `victim' other than a `complainant' in such case, shall have remedy of appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) only, except where he/she succeeds in establishing the guilt of an accused but is aggrieved at the conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of an inadequate compensation, for which he/she shall be entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code - The `victim', who is not the complainant in a private complaint-case, is not entitled to prefer appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 and his/her right to appeal, if any, continues to be governed by the unamended provisions read with Section 378(4) of the Code. (173) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372 - Appeal by victim - Period of limitation for an appeal by a `victim' under proviso to Section 372. (173) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372 Proviso, 38(1)(a) - In view of proviso to Section 372 an appeal preferred by a `victim' against the order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable offence whether bailable or non-bailable shall lie to the Court of Session, the State's appeal under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code against that very order shall also be entertained and/or transferred to the same Sessions Court. (173) PLR

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 372 Proviso (as inserted) - Proviso to Section 372 inserted w.e.f. December 31, 2009 is prospective in application and only those orders which have been passed on or after December 31, 2009, irrespective of the date of occurrence or registration of FIR or filing of complaint, shall be appealable at the instance of a `victim' under the afore-stated proviso - Consequently, a revision petition preferred against an order of acquittal passed prior to December 31, 2009 cannot be converted into an appeal and shall be decided accordingly. (173) PLR

Cr.P.C., Section 372 Proviso -  Must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence - Putting the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29th November, 1985, to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights - Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the one that we are presently concerned with -  Considered in this light, there is no doubt that the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence - On the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. (2018)2 *Supreme Court e@Journal* 1482

Cr.P.C. Section 372  Proviso - Introduction of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. with effect from 31st December, 2009  - Whether a 'victim' as defined in the Cr.P.C. has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to 31st December, 2009 but the order of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court after 31st December, 2009? - Our answer to this question is in the affirmative -  The significant date is the date of the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - In a sense, the cause of action arises in favour of the victim of an offence only when an order of acquittal is passed and if that happens after 31st December, 2009 the victim has a right to challenge the acquittal, through an appeal -  Indeed, the right not only extends to challenging the order of acquittal but also challenging the conviction of the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation -  The language of the proviso is quite explicit, and we should not read nuances that do not exist in the proviso - Decision rendered in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and another, (2010) 12 SCC 599, has been misunderstood and misinterpreted and is clearly distinguishable on facts - Even otherwise, the decision has been rendered by a Bench of the two learned judges and while the view expressed therein certainly has great persuasive value but it would not be binding on a Bench of three Judges - Besides, the obiter dicta of this Court would not bind us.(2018)2 *Supreme Court e@Journal* 1482