GOVINDA Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District, in S.C. No. 76 of 2016 dated 08.12.2016. Though charge has been laid against the three accused persons on the complaint given by the petitioner/appellant, who was the defacto complainant, for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, (in short called as 1992 Act), the learned trial Court Judge, after having tried the case, has ultimately acquitted the accused persons. Aggrieved over the said order of acquittal, the complainant filed this appeal before this Court, of course, after getting leave from this Court, on 28.07.2017 under Section 378(4) of CrPC.

(2.) Even at the time of getting the said leave, it seems that, the appellant has pleaded before this Court that, since he is the victim, he is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 372 of CrPC and therefore, in that capacity, since he is entitled to file an appeal before this Court, he sought for the relief under Section 378(4) of CrPC, which was granted by this Court on 28.07.2017 and the appeal has been numbered and it is taken up for hearing.

(3.) Today, when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the private respondents as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that, in view of the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, which was inserted, by amending Section 372 of the Code, from 01.01.2010, the appellant/Victim/complainant would be entitled to prefer an appeal before the Court, where, an appeal would ordinarily lie against the order of conviction.