KRISHNA BAI Vs. BATAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondent No. 1/accused of offences for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide his judgment and order dated 21-9-2011 in S.T. No. 213/10. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/accused raised an objection by moving an application (I.A. No. 11708/2012) regarding the maintainability of present appeal and submitted that the same is not maintainable before this Court, in view of introduction of proviso to Section 372 of the Code, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), since the appellant herein is not covered by the definition "victim" and a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, has not been conferred upon him by the said proviso to Section 372 of the Code. Therefore, he urged that the present appeal cannot be entertained by this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Shri Lahoti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant countered the said arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 1/accused, vehemently and submitted that the provision of Section 378 of the Code is an exclusive provision for appeals in cases of acquittal. He further submitted that the provision of sub-section (3) to Section 378 of the Code, which was incorporated by amendment in the year 2005, w.e.f. 23-6-2006, prescribes that no appeal shall lie to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) except with the leave of the High Court, whereas sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code relates to the appeals to the High Court against the order of acquittal in cases instituted upon the complaint and on an application made to it by the complainant, if the High Court grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

(3.) He submitted that the accused in the present case is working as Anganwadi worker in Village Munda Khera. She on the basis of forged marks-sheet issued by the District Board of Education, Guna of one Vimala Bai, daughter of Roop Singh secured appointed and thereby got all monetary benefits attached to the post. So, the appellant being informer of the incident, according to the learned Counsel can be termed as victim of the incident and consequently, the appeal under Section 372(2) of Cr. PC is maintainable as per provisions of law.