The judgment establishes the interpretation and application of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the requirement of leave for filing an appeal by the victim, the power of the High Court to admit or dismiss the appeal, and the limitation for filing an appeal against acquittal by a victim.

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been field by Amit Bhagirath Mishra, who is the victim within the meaning of Section 372, Criminal Procedure Code. His mother Nirmalabai had a long-standing dispute with the accused Jagdambaprasad over a share in the property.

2. On 14th December, 2004 at about 11.00 a.m., when Nirmalabai was at home and was sweeping her premises, the accused Jagadambaprasad arrived, asked her not to sweep and to pay him Rs.1,000/- or to vacate the premises. Then he locked the latrine and bathroom, had a quarrel with Nirmalabai, went back to his house, brought a can of kerosene, poured it on her person and set her on fire. As a result, Nirmalabai died. Investigation was taken up. Charge-sheet was filed and accused Jagadambaprasad son of Parmanand Mishra was put on trial before the Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, ultimately passed the Judgment and Order of acquittal of accused Jagadambaprasad Mishra of the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal has been filed by the victim.

3. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, learned Senior Adv., for the Appellant, submitted as under:-

[a] In the case of Balasaheb Rangnath Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 1153], the Division Bench of this Court held that proviso added to Section 372, Criminal Procedure Code, does not speak of the Leave of the High Court to file an appeal against acquittal, as contemplated by Section 378(1)(2), Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, a separate application for grant of Leave as in the case of an appeal to be filed by the State is not necessary.

[b] There is no limitation provided for filing of appeal by the victim under Section 372, Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the law of limitation has no application. As a result, the general principle that in such cases filing of appeal within a reasonable time should be the criteria.

[c] Since Leave of the High Court is not necessary for filing of appeal by a victim, such appeal has to be entertained and posted directly for final hearing without scrutinizing whether such appeal by victim is worth admitting for final hearing or not and that is clear from paragraph 26 of the said Judgment in Balasaheb's case.

4. The two learned Judges constituting Division Bench in the case of Balasaheb while delivering the Judgment on 21st September, 2011 differed and, therefore, a third Judge rendered her opinion and agreed with the view taken by the Judge presiding over the Division Bench [V.M. Kanade, J.], and also held in para 66 of her Judgment that an appeal filed by the victim after its filing cannot be scrutinized for admission, but will have to be straightway posted for final hearing/disposal on merits.

5. Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. A.S. Deshpande for respondent no.2 – accused, opposed the submission and pointed out a Full Bench Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd., & others and KesarSingh Vs. Dheeraj Kumar and submitted that the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the proviso to Section 372, Criminal Procedure Code, is prospective in application, i.e., from 31st December, 2009, and all matters filed after that date would have to be treated in accordance with the said amended provision as against the matters earlier filed by the old provisions. He also pointed out that the condition seeking Leave to Appeal or Special Leave to Appeal contemplated by Section 378(3) and (4), Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be imposed for the maintainability of appeal by the victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length on the question whether Leave or Special Leave contemplated by Section 378(3) and (4), Criminal Procedure Code, is required or not. We hasten to add that t