Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Therefore, the revision filed before the Sessions Judge was without any jurisdiction and not maintainable and Annexure AII order was passed without jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the above revision was preferred after the amendment of Cr.P.C. and proviso to Section 372 permits the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal after amendment. Such an appeal shall lie to the court to  which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of such court. Therefore, when an appeal ordinarily lies to the sessions court, this revision is maintainable like an appeal and misquoting Section 397 instead of 372 proviso is a clerical mistake and there is no illegality in the order passed by the lower court. First respondent is a victim as mentioned in the proviso to Section 372 of the Code and he has a right to file an appeal.