Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.

The issue, which arises for consideration, is as to whether a Criminal Appeal would, at the instance of a victim, be maintainable before a Division Bench of a High Court against order of acquittal passed by an Appellate Court subordinate to the High Court.

2. The facts, relevant for deciding the issue, fall in a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The appellant, Jainath Prasad, lodged a First Information Report against Respondent No.2, Brahma Prasad, and three others, namely, Chandra Prakash Devi, Ramesh Kumar and Ram Sundar Das, wherein it was alleged that Respondent No.2, Brahma Prasad, with aid of other accused persons, made negotiations for sale of some of his land and, in the process, executed different sale deeds in favour of the informant, whereupon the informant took possession of the land and his name was also mutated, but some time thereafter, the informant learnt that wife of Brahma Prasad had also filed a petition, in the Anchal Office, for mutation of the land, which was sold in his favour, and, upon enquiry, the informant learnt that Brahma Prasad had already executed a prior sale deed in favour of his wife with respect to the same land, which he subsequently sold to the informant. Feeling cheated, the informant lodged the report, as mentioned hereinbefore, with the police, which gave rise to Keshariya P.S. Case No.93 of 1990 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon investigation, police submitted charge sheet against all the three accused named in the First Information Report under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were accordingly framed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. To the charges so framed, all the pleaded not guilty. In course of time, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the materials on record, convicted Brahma Prasad under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code; whereas other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges.

3. The informant did not prefer any appeal against acquittal of the three accused persons or even against acquittal of respondent No.2, Brahma Prasad, of the offences under Sections 406/420/468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; rather, it was Respondent No.2, Brahma Prasad, who filed an appeal under Section 374(3)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against his conviction under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sessions, which give rise to Criminal Appeal No.89 of 1998. The learned Appellate Court acquitted Brahma Prasad even of the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, which was, as mentioned hereinbefore, the only offence of which he had been convicted by the learned trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court, the informant filed a revision before this Court, which gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 501 of 2012. The revision came to be listed before a learned Single Judge, who by order, dated 27.1.2014, permitted the informant (appellant) to convert the revision application into one under Criminal Appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372, the proviso having been added to the Code in the year 2009. This is how the matter has come before us.

5. In course of hearing of the appeal, some doubts arose, whether Criminal Appeal would be maintainable, at the instance of a victim, against order of acquittal passed by an Appellate Court in a Police Case. The learned Single Judge, in view of the proviso inserted by Act 5 of 2009 to Section 372 of Indian Penal Code, has permitted the “informant”, (who is “victim” too), to convert the revision into one under Criminal Appeal, which, in turn, raises some more legal issues. One such issue is: whether the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, which provides a right to appeal against acquittal, would include both the complainant and the informant if they come w