CHUNNI LAL Vs. CHHOTEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS list has been revised. No one appears for the appellant (complainant) Sri Virendra Saran, counsel for the accused-respondent and the learned AG \ are present. Sri Virendra Saran, learned counsel for the accused respondent raised a preliminary objection that this appeal was not maintainable as this was a police chalani case and hence the complainant has do right to file an appeal. The record shows that complainant Chunni Lal filed an application for leave to appeal under section 378 (4) CrPC and the said application was allowed on 31-1-79 and the appeal was then admitted. Section 378 (4) CrPC has, however, no application to the present case because it was not a complaint case but a police chalani case, which is evident from the lower court's judgment as well as from the record of the case. As such the State Government had a right to file an appeal against the order of acquittal and the complainant had no such right.

(2.) IN view of the above, the present appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.