9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties on the interpretation of proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C. in relation to Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. It is agreed position that as per the amended proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C., the victim has been given a remedy of appeal against every acquittal order passed by the magistrate court and his appeal in such type of matters can be heard by the concerned Sessions Judge. S.B.Cr. Leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould have been filed in the Sessions Court, Bhilwara first and only thenafter the aggrieved party could have challenged the order of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in this Court. So after hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that while Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. confers jurisdiction of hearing appeal against acquittal on the High Court, the amended proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. does so on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when 2013 Cr.L.R.(S.C.) Page 1-Subhash Chand v. State was decided by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Same is the case with the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by this High Court in S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 875/2010 Manju Kawadiya v. Ghanshyam Sahu where also provisions of amended proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. were not brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that once the Section 372, Cr.P.C. has been amended, the appeal against acquittal by the Magistrate would lie to the court of Sessions and leave to appeal in such matters should not be granted by the High Court ordinarily. Resultantly, the petition for leave to appeal of the complainant- M/s Porwal Trading Corporation is hereby returned to the petitioner for presentation before the court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
