The decision of this Court in the case of Top Notch
5.
Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd. ..vs.. M/s. Infosoft Systems and ors.; 2011 (6)
Mh. L. J. 165 in term reveals a view has been taken that word “Victim”
as defined under section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. relates only to the case
instituted upon the police report. It also reveals that appropriate remedy
for complainant in private case to prefer an appeal against the judgment
and order of acquittal passed in such case is by way of seeking leave
under section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Having regard to the same, the
appeal presented along with the application for condonation of delay by
non applicant was misconceived, due to it being not in accordance with
the provisions of procedural law regarding preferring of appeal against
judgment and order of acquittal recorded in cases instituted otherwise
than on police report.
Criminal Revision Application No. 143/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
1. Mohd. Azim Sheikh Ibrahim,
Aged 55 years, Occ. Business.
Vs
1. Mehamuda Anjum Mohd. Azim,
CORAM: P. D. KODE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 19, 2013
Citation; 2014 ALLMR(CRI)991
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
By this application in revision, the original accused in Reg.
3.
Criminal Case No.1160/2003 of the J.M.F.C. Court No.4, Amravati as
well as the non applicants in Criminal Application for condonation of
delay i.e. M. Cri. A. No.28/2012 preferred by present non applicant no.1
for preferring an appeal against judgment and order of acquittal, have
prayed for examining the legality, correctness and propriety of order
dated 01.11.2011 passed by Court of Session, condoning the delay of 66
days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal
i.e. preferred by the complainant.
4.
The complainantnon applicant had made complaint to the
Magistrate on the allegation that the applicants herein having committed
an offence under Section 405, 406 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The trial Court,
after trial, was pleased to acquit the applicantsaccused from the charge
of commission of such offences committed. The non applicant
complainant, thereafter, presented an application for condonation of
delay for preferring an appeal purported to be an appeal under
provisions of section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court condoned
said delay vide order dated 08.08.2012. The said order is assailed by the
accusedapplicants in the present proceeding.
The decision of this Court in the case of Top Notch
5.
Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd. ..vs.. M/s. Infosoft Systems and ors.; 2011 (6)
Mh. L. J. 165 in term reveals a view has been taken that word “Victim”
as defined under section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. relates only to the case
instituted upon the police report. It also reveals that appropriate remedy
for complainant in private case to prefer an appeal against the judgment
and order of acquittal passed in such case is by way of seeking leave
under section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Having regard to the same, the
appeal presented along with the application for condonation of delay by
non applicant was misconceived, due to it being not in accordance with
the provisions of procedural law regarding preferring of appeal against
judgment and order of acquittal recorded in cases instituted otherwise
than on police report.
6.
Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay
preferred by non applicant no.1 was superfluous. The order passed
thereon condoning the delay was illegal and improper. The said order
cannot be legally sustained. As a matter of fact, no period of limitation is
provided for the appeals which are made permissible under the proviso
of section 372 Cr.P.C.
7.
In the aforesaid circumstances, there appears all substance in
the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel that the order passed
condoning the delay as well as entertaining an appeal by the Sessions
Court is manifestly illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
8.
Resultantly, order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Court of
Session in M. Cri. A. No. 28/2012, condoning the delay is hereby
quashed and set aside. Similarly, the appeal presented along with said
ig
application also stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there
would be no order as to costs.
It is clarified that it will be open to non applicant no.1 to
pursue appropriate remedy, in accordance with law for redressal of the
grievance, if any, due to recording of an order of acquittal in the
complaint made by him.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment