1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This matter has been listed in view of the office notes, raising objection regarding limitation in filing appeal by the informant under proviso of the Section 372 Cr.P.C.

3. Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being enforced.

4. This provision has been amended vide Amendment Act, 2008 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The amended provision provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court, acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection, which has been raised by the office on the point of limitation has no application for the reason that under the Limitation Act, as yet, no period of limitation has been provided, as only limitation which is provided under Article 114 of the Limitation Act relates to provision of appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. The period of limitation for filing an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. is 90 days and it will be presumed that till date no other period of limitation has been provided for filing an appeal under Section 372 by the victim, the same period of limitation will be applicable, which is provided under Article 114 of the Limitation Act for filing an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

6. In this view of the matter, if this period of limitation is taken into account, the appeal, preferred by the appellant is not barred by limitation, as it has been filed within the period of 90 days.

7. In view of this submission, we are of the opinion that the appeal is not barred by limitation.