Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Rashid vs Idu Khan on 14 May, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.329-MA of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.5.2012
Abdul Rashid
...... Applicant
Versus
Idu Khan
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Mohd. Youaf, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. H.S. Gharoo, Advocate for
Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate
for the respondent.
----
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. This application under Section 378(4) for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant against judgment dated 17.12.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, vide which, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been dismissed and the respondent was acquitted.
2. It is useful to refer to Section 372 CrPC, as amended w.e.f. 31.12.2009, whereby a proviso has been inserted, giving right of appeal to the victim before the Sessions Judge. Section 372 CrPC reads thus:-
"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to CRM No.329-MA of 2010 2 prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."
3. This Court, vide order dated 23.08.2010 in Crl. Misc. No. A-586-MA of 2009, titled as, "Dr. Gian Singh Kamboj vs. Dr. Nirmaltej Singh Sodhi and another", has observed that after the amendment made in Section 372 Cr.P.C, all the appeals against the judgment/orders passed by Judicial Magistrate lie before the Sessions Judge. The said amendment being an amendment in the procedure is to be read and applied retrospectively.
4. In view of the aforesaid amended provision of Section 372 CrPC, the applicant is relegated to the aforesaid remedy. The present application for leave to appeal is ordered to be withdrawn from this Court and the application is permitted to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge Sangrur.
5. Let the appeal be filed within 30 days from today before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
6. Needless to say that if such an appeal is filed before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur along with the application for condonation for delay, the said application for condonation of delay, shall be considered in accordance with law but sympathetically.
May 14, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ak JUDGE