This has also been the view of most of the High Courts, with respect to this
question. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Tata Steel v. Atma Tube Projects,
(2014)1PLR1, CRM-790-MA-2010, held that:
“Since right to appeal is a substantive right and it cannot be inferred by
implication unless the Statute expressly provides so, the only inescapable
conclusion would be to hold that the right to appeal given to a 'victim'
under proviso to Section 372 of the Code is prospective and has become
enforceable w.e.f. December 31, 2009 only. A 'victim' is entitled to prefer
appeal in respect of any type of order referred to in the proviso to Section
372 if such order has been passed on or after December 31, 2009
irrespective of the date of registration of FIR or the date of occurrence
etc. To be more specific, it is clarified that it is the date of passing of the
order to be appealed from and not any other fact situation, which shall
determine the right to appeal of a 'victim'.”
57. Similarly, in Parmeshwar (supra), the Patna High Court clearly held:
“… the said proviso contains both substantive part, creating right in the
victim to prefer an appeal, and procedural part, by identifying the forum
for filing such an appeal. It is not in dispute that the substantivse part of
law operates prospectively… it has to be concluded that the right of
victim, to prefer an appeal in terms of said proviso to Section 372,
became available to the victim(s) of all cases in which orders were passed
by any criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a
lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, on or after 31st of
December, 2009. In other words, date of judgment of a criminal court has
to be necessarily treated as the relevant date for applying the test of
maintainability of appeal by the victim under three contingencies laid
down under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, irrespective of the
date of occurrence, institution of the case, cognizance or commitment.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dated: 28.05.2015
CRL.A.1415/2012
RAM PHAL .
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Print Page
question. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Tata Steel v. Atma Tube Projects,
(2014)1PLR1, CRM-790-MA-2010, held that:
“Since right to appeal is a substantive right and it cannot be inferred by
implication unless the Statute expressly provides so, the only inescapable
conclusion would be to hold that the right to appeal given to a 'victim'
under proviso to Section 372 of the Code is prospective and has become
enforceable w.e.f. December 31, 2009 only. A 'victim' is entitled to prefer
appeal in respect of any type of order referred to in the proviso to Section
372 if such order has been passed on or after December 31, 2009
irrespective of the date of registration of FIR or the date of occurrence
etc. To be more specific, it is clarified that it is the date of passing of the
order to be appealed from and not any other fact situation, which shall
determine the right to appeal of a 'victim'.”
57. Similarly, in Parmeshwar (supra), the Patna High Court clearly held:
“… the said proviso contains both substantive part, creating right in the
victim to prefer an appeal, and procedural part, by identifying the forum
for filing such an appeal. It is not in dispute that the substantivse part of
law operates prospectively… it has to be concluded that the right of
victim, to prefer an appeal in terms of said proviso to Section 372,
became available to the victim(s) of all cases in which orders were passed
by any criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a
lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, on or after 31st of
December, 2009. In other words, date of judgment of a criminal court has
to be necessarily treated as the relevant date for applying the test of
maintainability of appeal by the victim under three contingencies laid
down under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, irrespective of the
date of occurrence, institution of the case, cognizance or commitment.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dated: 28.05.2015
CRL.A.1415/2012
RAM PHAL .
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT