Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sau. Geeta Bapurao Kapse, was the original complainant in Criminal (Summary) Complaint Case No.232 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha. The non-applicant, Anil Vithalrao Kadu, was original accused No.2, and Sanjay Varbhe was original accused No.1. Both were convicted by the Magistrate on 12th October 2011. The non-applicant and original accused No.1 filed separate appeals before the Sessions Court: Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2011 (by non-applicant) and Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2011 (by original accused No.1). The Sessions Court heard both appeals together, dismissed the appeal of original accused No.1, but allowed the appeal of the non-applicant and acquitted him. The applicant then sought to file a criminal revision application against the acquittal, but there was a delay. She filed Criminal Application (APPR) No.170 of 2012 for condonation of delay. During hearing, the court raised the question whether a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is maintainable against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in appeal. The court determined that the words 'such an order of acquittal' in Section 378(4) CrPC include an order of acquittal passed by the appellate court in a case instituted upon a complaint. The court relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Sankalchand Varchhaji v. Khengaram Vardhaji (AIR 1969 Gujarat 342) and Mahammadmiya Kalumiya v. Dildarkhan (1972 Cri.L.J. 1409), and the Karnataka High Court in K.H. Ganesh Rao v. H. Gopal (2010 Cri.L.J. 2687 = 2010 Cri.L.J. 4755). Consequently, the court allowed the applicant to convert the criminal revision application into a criminal appeal and granted liberty to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal if necessary. The application for condonation of delay was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378(4) CrPC - Interpretation of 'such an order of acquittal' - The phrase includes an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in appeal from a complaint case - The court held that the complainant has a right to appeal against an appellate acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC, and the revision application can be converted into an appeal (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the words 'such an order of acquittal' in Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 include an order of acquittal passed by the appellate court in a case instituted upon a complaint.
Final Decision
The court allowed the applicant to convert the criminal revision application into a criminal appeal. The applicant is at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal, if necessary. The present application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 378(4) CrPC
- order of acquittal
- appellate court
- complaint case
- maintainability of appeal
- conversion of revision
