Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. With this background, we need to consider the questions that arise before us consequent to the introduction of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC with effect from 31-12-2009. The questions are somewhat limited : Whether a "victim" as defined in CrPC has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to 31-12-2009 but the order of acquittal was passed by the trial court after 31-12- 2009? Our answer to this question is in the affirmative. The next question is : Whether the "victim" must apply for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal? Our answer to this question is in the negative."

37. The same issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahafuja Banu v. Md. Asadul Islam, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 9390 39. On due consideration of series of decisions, passed by different High Courts on the issue, it was held that the judgment of acquittal had not attained finality, in that the victim had a right to file a revision petition and the State had the right to file an appeal. All that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC had done was to replace the right of a revision with the right to appeal.

76. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent that "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC, being the direct sufferer of financial loss to the tune of Rs 3,88,85,000/-, out of which Rs. 61,47,800/- was withdrawn by the Petitioner for his personal use, including for purchase of car and housing loan repayment.

77. The Respondent No. 2 had filed Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2021, aggrieved by the Trial Court's failure to award compensation, and the same was allowed by the Appellate Court. It is argued that such appeal was fully maintainable under the third clause of Section 372 CrPC, which allows a victim to prefer an appeal on the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.2 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025 ground of inadequate compensation.

106. The enhancement of sentence from 7 to 10 years under Section 467 IPC by the learned Appellate Court is thus held to be without jurisdiction and in direct contravention of statutory limits. The said order of enhancement is accordingly set aside and the original sentence of 7 years, even if otherwise sustainable, is treated as non-existent for the purpose of law.

107. The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal, filed by the victim under Section 372 Cr.P.C., has directed the Petitioner to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 61,47,800/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The Petitioner's primary objection is that such compensation could not have been awarded as the sentence already included fine, and that no financial enquiry or opportunity of hearing was granted.