SHIBU JOSEPH Vs. TOMY K.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common issue as to the applicability of the amended Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises for consideration in all these cases, and hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The issue that is being agitated is whether the complainant in a private complaint, on which cognizance was taken and which ended in acquittal of the accused, can resort to the new statutory remedy by way of appeal provided under Section 372 proviso or is he confined to the earlier remedy provided for under Section 378(4) CrPC of filing an appeal before the High Court after obtaining special leave.

(3.) An unimaginative hasty amendment, little aware of its consequences, though intended to be progressive and beneficial, has created confusion regarding the remedy available to certain group of persons. The matter has engaged the attention of various High Courts in the country, but the decisions have not been uniform. While some of the High Courts have taken the view that a complainant in a private complaint, which after trial ends in the acquittal of the accused, can now, if he falls within the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of CrPC, resort to the remedy by way of appeal as provided under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, some other High Courts have taken the view that in the light of the earlier provision, namely, Section 378(4) CrPC which continues to exist in the Statute book and is unamended, the remedy of the complainant is only to resort to the remedy under that provision.