Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nandabai, was the original complainant in a criminal case against the respondent-accused, Maruti Gopala Mehetre, for causing hurt. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, convicted the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (grievous hurt). On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, modified the conviction to one under Section 323 IPC (simple hurt) and sentenced the accused to pay only a fine. The petitioner challenged this appellate decision by filing a Criminal Revision Application No. 280 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought to convert the revision into an appeal under Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on the proviso to Section 372 CrPC inserted by Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009, which gives victims a right to appeal against acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence. The respondent opposed this, arguing that the amendment was prospective and did not apply to judgments delivered before its commencement. The High Court, per Justice T.V. Nalawade, held that the amendment to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective as it affects the existing right of the accused to the finality of the appellate order. The court relied on the Privy Council decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1927 PC 242, which held that provisions touching existing rights are not ordinarily retrospective. The court also referred to National Commission for Woman v. State of Delhi, (2010) 12 SCC 599, which clarified that the proviso to Section 372 came into effect on 31.12.2009 and is prospective. Since the appellate judgment in this case was delivered long before the amendment, the revision could not be converted into an appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision application, upholding the appellate court's decision to convict the accused under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 325 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Right of Appeal - Retrospectivity of Amendment - Section 372 proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The proviso inserted by Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009 gives a limited right to the victim to file an appeal against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation. However, this amendment is prospective and does not apply to judgments delivered before its commencement, as it affects the existing right of the accused to finality of the appellate order. (Paras 3-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Conversion to Appeal - Section 401(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court has power to treat a revision as an appeal, but only if the revision was filed as an appeal in the first instance. Since the amendment conferring right of appeal was not in force when the appellate judgment was delivered, the revision cannot be converted into an appeal. (Para 2) C) Criminal Law - Hurt - Grievous Hurt vs Simple Hurt - Sections 323, 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellate court converted conviction from Section 325 (grievous hurt) to Section 323 (simple hurt) based on evidence. The revision against such conversion was dismissed as the amendment to Section 372 CrPC was not retrospective. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision can be converted into an appeal under the amended Section 372 CrPC, and whether the amendment has retrospective effect to confer a right of appeal on the victim in a case where the appellate judgment was delivered before the amendment.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The court declined to convert the revision into an appeal, holding that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is prospective and does not apply to the present case as the appellate judgment was delivered before 31.12.2009.
Law Points
- Procedural law is not retrospective if it affects existing rights
- Right of appeal is a substantive right
- Amendment to Section 372 CrPC giving victim right to appeal is prospective
