RAJENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs. RAVINDRA NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR Chattar Singh has filed this appeal under the proviso to section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code'), claiming himself to be a victim. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2010 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent nos. 1 to 4 who had been charged under sections 120-B, 364 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w 120-B and 201 r/w 120-B IPC, were acquitted.

(2.) THE primary question which arises in this case is with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Can Mr Chattar Singh, the father of the deceased Satish, be regarded as a victim for the purposes of the proviso to section 372 of the Code? Who is a victim' for the purposes of the proviso to section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?

(3.) ANOTHER decision referred to by Mr Kirpal was that of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348, where, at pages 355-356, the Supreme Court observed as under:- ... It has been urged that in Rule 2(b) the expression means and includes has been used which indicates that the definition is inclusive in nature and also covers categories which are not expressly mentioned therein. We are unable to agree. A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word means' or the word includes'. Sometimes the words means and includes' are used. The use of the word means' indicates that definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition. (See : Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665]; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1990) 3 SCC 682, 717]). The word includes' when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The words means and includes, on the other hand, indicate an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions. (See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC 99, 105-106](Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P.[(1989) 1 SCC 164, 169]. Of course, the definition in Kasilingam (supra) was one where the expression employed was means and includes whereas in section 2(wa) of the Code the expression is means ... and includes which is in the form means A and includes B.