Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

benefit a specific group of persons falling within the ambit of the definition of victim. It was contended that these persons had no remedy earlier against acquittal and they had no role to play in the proceedings. It was felt that the victims were the most affected persons in a crime, and in the absence of any provision in the CrPC for them to participate in the proceedings or to agitate the matter when they feel aggrieved by the final decision, it was thought necessary that they should be provided with some remedies, and it is with that object and purpose that the amendments have been introduced. Heydon's Rule of Interpretation was invoked in support of this contention. It was also pointed out that as far as the complainants in a private complaint are concerned, there already existed a remedy by way of appeal by Special Leave under Section 378(4) CrPC and the amendment to Section 372 CrPC and the introduction of the definition under Section 2(wa) CrPC is not intended to cover them as they were already conferred with statutory remedies. ......
7. The rival contention is that when the Statute provides a remedy, it is not for the Court, by an interpretative exercise, to limit the scope of the provision and to deny the benefit of the provision to those who are entitled to the same. If the complainant answers the CRL.R.P.NOS.2334 & 2338 OF 2013 :: 14 ::
definition of victim as contained in Section 2(wa) CrPC, then there is no justification to deny such a person a right of appeal as provided under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. It was also contended that the Legislature must be bestowed with the knowledge of the existence of Section 378(4) CrPC in the Statute book and in spite of the existence of such a provision, while incorporating proviso to Section 372 CrPC and incorporating the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC, the Legislature did not exclude complainant. The mere fact that the complainant may have two remedies by itself is not a ground to deny them the benefit of the amended provision. ...."
complaint. The learned Judge in Shibu Joseph's case concluded thus:
"62. From the above discussion, the following conclusions emerge:
(a) Complainants in private complaints, who satisfy the definition of victim as contained in Section 2 (wa) of CrPC, are entitled to file appeal as provided under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as a matter of right.
(b) Complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is also a victim and is entitled to the same benefit as the victim in any other case instituted on a private complaint.
(d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section CRL.R.P.NOS.2334 & 2338 OF 2013 :: 16 ::
372 CrPC is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31/12/2009.

(e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 CrPC and the stipulation in Section 378(4) CrPC to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case."