KRISHAN KANT ANAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist before this Court was an Engineer in the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as "THDC"). He had some problems with the management of the THDC, regarding his service. On 08.04.2009 between 4.00 -4.30 in the evening, when he was on his way to the office of the General Manager, his car was stopped at the office gate by a Guard of the Central Industrial Security Force, who was on duty. According to the revisionist he was then taken out from his car and repeatedly assaulted by the said Guard. Thereafter the revisionist tried to lodge the first information report before the police but it was only lodged as a non cognizable report. Aggrieved, the revisionist moved a complaint before the learned Magistrate which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Against the said order, the revisionist preferred a revision before the revisional court, which was allowed by the revisional court and it was directed to the learned Magistrate to decide the complaint as per the law. Consequently, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police authorities to lodge an FIR, investigate the matter and do the needful. The police investigated the matter but filed the charge -sheet only under Section 323 IPC against the respondent no. 2 i.e. Gyanendra Singh who was the erstwhile Constable of CISF who assaulted the revisionist. Section 323 IPC, is a non cognizable offence.

(2.) The trial court acquitted the Constable. The present revisionist thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal against the acquittal order dated 01.05.2013, which was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on maintainability. It is the order of the appellate court dated 11.06.2015 which is under challenge before this Court. The present revisionist relies upon the proviso inserted to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. by an amendment w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Section 372 CrPC reads as under: -

(3.) The revisionist has relied upon the above proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which was amended on 31.12.2009 and which gives a right to a "victim" to file an appeal against acquittal. It is not visualized that any leave of the Court is to be taken here, as it is simply a right of appeal to a victim. However, an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. was filed belatedly by the revisionist, as according to the revisionist he was making efforts and trying to persuade the State to file an appeal and when he realized the State will not file its appeal, he had to file the appeal himself and this delayed the matter.