ASHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist, questioning the judgement dated 17th May 2016, as rendered by the Sessions Judge, Almora in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2015, Asha Devi v. Harish Chandra Pandey and another, whereby the Appeal of the revisionist was dismissed as not maintainable and consequently the judgement of acquittal as rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2013, State v. Harish Chandra Pandey under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC to be read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been upheld.

(2.) The only legal question, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that if the judgement of the Appellate Court is taken into consideration it was holding that the Appeal preferred by the revisionist under the proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C., as 'not maintainable', on the ground that the same was not accompanied with an application for Leave to Appeal, whether this reasoning of dismissal of appeal could be sustained or not; or whether under the changed circumstances of the law and the judicial interpretation on which the parties have relied whether the revisionist at the time of preferring of an Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 30th June 2016, she was, at all required to file an application for leave to appeal in order to make it sustainable before the Sessions Court in view of the provisions contained under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Before venturing into the technicalities of the issues, as raised by the learned counsel for the parties to the criminal revision, the learned counsel for the respondent has appraised this Court with regards to certain factual backdrops under which the controversy has reached upto the stage of the present Criminal Revision before this Court under Section 397 to be read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.