Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 2 in The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Kamabhai Parmabhai Patel (Chaudhari) on 11 August, 2021
11.5 On the very same line of
arguments, as referred above, according to Mr. Mehta, the order dated
4th
October 2011 passed by the other Division Bench in case of State
of Gujarat v. Chaudhary (Patel) Pababhai Devabhai & Ors.
(supra)
taking the view that "when the appeal against order of
acquittal filed by the original
complainant - victim being Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2011 has
been admitted, the appeal by the State is not required to be
entertained" does not lay down the correct position of law.
Smt. Ram Kaur @ Jaswinder Kaur vs Jagbir Singh Alias Jabi And Others on 1 April, 2010
34.1 In the case of Smt.
Ram Kaur @ Jaswinder Kaur v. Jagbir Singh alias Jabi and others,
in Criminal Appeal
No. 205-DB of 2010 decided
by a Division
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 1st
April 2010, the
question was whether without taking the leave to appeal from the
Court in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 378 of the Code, a victim
can file appeal under section 372 of the Code. The Division Bench, in
the facts of the said case, held that the appellant who was a
complainant, was not a 'victim' who was entitled to prefer an appeal
under section 372 of the Code and, therefore, she could not prefer an
appeal under section 372 of the Code in the police case. According
to the Division Bench, even otherwise, if the appellant was supposed
to be covered by the definition of "victim" under
sub-section (wa) of Section 2 of the Code, having a right to prefer
an appeal against the order of acquittal , according to the Division
Bench, she was required to file an application for grant of leave to
appeal. The Division Bench further pointed out that even against an
order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint, the
complainant has been provided the right to appeal, and he can file
such appeal with an application for grant of special leave to appeal
from the order of acquittal. Thus, under the Code, the Division Bench
proceeded, the appeal against acquittal could have been preferred
only with the permission of the High Court on an application filed
for grant of leave to appeal against the order in appeal. According
to the Division Bench of the said High Court, the proviso to section
372 of the Code gives a right upon the victim to prefer an appeal
against the order of acquittal being sufferer from the act or
omission of the offender but such appeal shall lie to the Court to
which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of
such Court. The Division Bench further held that by the proviso, a
right to file an appeal has been conferred on the victim against the
order of acquittal, but the procedure for filing such appeal will be
the same as provided under Section 378 of the Code.
Mr. Balasaheb Rangnath Khade vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 September, 2011
34.4 In the case of Balasaheb
Rangnath Khade v. The State of Maharashtra
in Criminal Appeals
No. 991 of 2011 and No. 992 of 2011,
there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges of a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Curt and, therefore, the matter was
referred to a third Judge on the question whether a victim can file
file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial
Court without filing an application for leave to file appeal. The
third-Judge was of the view that the victim was not required to apply
for or obtain leave of the Court to file any of the appeals under the
proviso to Section 372. The learned third-Judge held that the plain
meaning implicit in the substantive right granted by the legislature
to the victim is to grant the victim the right which was otherwise
not available. The third-Judge further held that it demonstrates the
fact that the right of appeal given to the State was not sufficient,
adequate and enough for the victim's rights and notwithstanding the
fact that the State had a right to appeal from an order of acquittal,
the victim was also granted the right to appeal from the order of
acquittal, lesser offence or inadequate compensation. The
third-Judge further held that a proviso shows an exception to the
Section that may qualify the main enactment and proviso to Section
372 of the Code shows that no matter what is the position in the
Code, the right of appeal is given to the victim and such a right of
appeal given to the victim is an unqualified right and could be
exercised not only as provided in the Code and was a right
untremmelled by other procedural provisions and requirements such as
the leave of the Court. In such circumstances, according to the
learned third-Judge, it was improper to be shackled by the position
of the past in which a victim played no role at all in the criminal
justice system and to say that the victim cannot claim to be on
higher pedestal in a criminal prosecution than the State and that
such can never be the intention of the legislature.
Article 114 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Kumar Shivhare vs Assistant Director Of Enforcement, ... on 24 September, 2008
32. We have already pointed out
that the right of appeal being statutory one, the language employed
by the legislature in the relevant Statute should be strictly
followed and we have relied upon the observations of the of the
Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and
Anr. (supra).