Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parbhani District Central Bank Ltd., through its Assistant Manager Digambar s/o Madanrao Parve, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, rejecting Miscellaneous Application No.1/2013 for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against the acquittal of respondent No.2. The background is that the petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent No.2 alleging offences under Sections 409, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which led to Regular Criminal Case No.68/1999 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. The trial court acquitted the accused by judgment dated 23.02.2011. The State did not appeal. The petitioner, being a victim, sought to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which was inserted by Amendment Act No.5 of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009, granting victims a right to appeal against acquittal. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the judgment on 11.06.2012 and after consulting the Public Prosecutor, filed the condonation application on 01.04.2013, explaining a delay of 18 months and 12 days. The lower court rejected the application. The petitioner argued that the limitation for a victim's appeal is not prescribed under Section 372 CrPC and that the delay was due to the State's failure to appeal and the time taken to obtain legal advice. The respondent opposed, citing delay and lack of sufficient cause. The High Court, after hearing the parties and the amicus curiae, held that the victim has a statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and that the delay was condonable as the petitioner acted diligently. The court set aside the impugned order, allowed the condonation application, and directed the lower court to hear the appeal on merits within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Right of Victim to Appeal - Proviso to Section 372 CrPC - The victim has a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a trial court, as inserted by Amendment Act No.5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The court held that the victim's right to appeal is independent of the State's right and the delay in filing such appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. (Paras 5-7) B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court held that the delay of 18 months and 12 days in filing the appeal by the victim was condonable as the victim had acted diligently and the delay was not intentional. The court set aside the order rejecting the condonation application and directed the lower court to decide the appeal on merits. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the victim has a right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and whether the delay in filing such appeal can be condoned.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 01.04.2013 is set aside. Miscellaneous Application No.1/2013 for condonation of delay is allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, is directed to decide the appeal on merits within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Right of victim to appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC
- Limitation for victim's appeal not prescribed
- Condonation of delay for victim's appeal
