HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Case :- U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 32 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ajay Mishra @ Tany
Respondent :- Rajeev Gupta & Ors.
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Order (Oral)
Towards our order dated 23.03.2011, this matter is listed today for further hearing.
Learned counsel for parties brought to our notice, a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 599 (National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and Another). The relevant portion of the order as discussed in para 8 of the judgment, on reproduction, would read as :
"Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "Appeal(s)". Section 372 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided by the Code or by any other law which authorises an appeal.
The proviso inserted by Section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31-12-2009, gives a limited right to the victim to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of inadequate compensation. The proviso may not thus be applicable as it came in the year 2009 (long after the present incident) and, in any case, would confer a right only on a victim and also does not envisage an appeal against an inadequate sentence. An appeal would thus be maintainable only under Section 377 to the High Court as it is effectively challenging the quantum of sentence."
Thus, as the legal position is now settled that Proviso to Section 372 (vide Act 5 of 2009) provides only a limited right to a victim and does not envisage the right of appeal against inadequate sentence by him, the matter stands concluded as regards the right of victim to file appeal under the newly added aforesaid provisions.
List the matter before appropriate Bench for hearing on merit at the earliest.
Order Date :- 18.1.2012
Print Page
Case :- U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 32 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ajay Mishra @ Tany
Respondent :- Rajeev Gupta & Ors.
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Order (Oral)
Towards our order dated 23.03.2011, this matter is listed today for further hearing.
Learned counsel for parties brought to our notice, a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 599 (National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and Another). The relevant portion of the order as discussed in para 8 of the judgment, on reproduction, would read as :
"Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "Appeal(s)". Section 372 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided by the Code or by any other law which authorises an appeal.
The proviso inserted by Section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31-12-2009, gives a limited right to the victim to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of inadequate compensation. The proviso may not thus be applicable as it came in the year 2009 (long after the present incident) and, in any case, would confer a right only on a victim and also does not envisage an appeal against an inadequate sentence. An appeal would thus be maintainable only under Section 377 to the High Court as it is effectively challenging the quantum of sentence."
Thus, as the legal position is now settled that Proviso to Section 372 (vide Act 5 of 2009) provides only a limited right to a victim and does not envisage the right of appeal against inadequate sentence by him, the matter stands concluded as regards the right of victim to file appeal under the newly added aforesaid provisions.
List the matter before appropriate Bench for hearing on merit at the earliest.
Order Date :- 18.1.2012
No comments:
Post a Comment