- (1.) Heard Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2009, on the ground that the revision has been dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) Learned Court of revision has observed that where the order impugned is appealable, there is a provision of appeal, the revision is not maintainable. Whereas learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the date of order impugned before the Court of revision, i.e. date of judgment of acquittal is 02.3.2009. The provision of appeal came into force on 31.12.2009. The remedy available against the order impugned shall be searched only in light of the provision provided on the date of order. He submits that since on the date of order of acquittal the remedy was only the revision to challenge the order impugned, the Petitioner rightly filed the revision. He supports his submission with a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Anr., 2010 12 SCC 599, relevant paragraph 8 of which is reproduced herein under; 8. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "Appeal(s)". Section 372 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order of a criminal Court except as provided by the Code or by any other law which authorizes an appeal. The proviso inserted by Section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31.12.2009, gives a limited right to the victim to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a criminal Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of inadequate compensation. The proviso may not thus be applicable as it came in the year 2009 (long after the present incident) and, in any case, would confer a right only on a victim and also does not envisage an appeal against an inadequate sentence. An appeal would thus be maintainable only under Section 377 to the High Court as it is effectively challenging the quantum of sentence.;