The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a victim as per the Code of Criminal Procedure and the requirement for authorization by the actual victim to file a criminal appeal.

1. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Calcutta has dismissed criminal appeal no. 40 of 2011 holding inter-alia that the present petitioner would not come within the purview of victim as per the definition of victim as contemplated in Section 2(WA) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with such decision the defacto complainant has filed this revisional application. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned first appellate Court committed grave error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner would not come within the purview of victim in terms of the definition as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. One Sushanta Roy sergeant of Calcutta Police lodged a written complaint before the officer in charge of Muchipara police station stating inter-alia that on 17th November, 2000 while he was on duty near Chobighor cinema hall, one Debabrata Basu, prior acquientee of Sushanta Roy came there and picked up the mobile from the pocket of Sushanta Roy and started observing the said mobile which actually belonged to the elder brother of Sushanta Roy. However, thereafter Debabrata Basu did not hand over the said mobile phone to Sushanta Roy and accordingly he lodged a case against Debabrata Basu which was registered as a police case and ultimately charge sheet was submitted against Debabrata Basu. Learned Magistrate acquitted Debabrata Basu on 18th August, 2009. The state thereafter did not file any appeal against such order of acquittal. The defacto complainant/the petitioner thereafter filed criminal appeal no. 40 of 2011 claiming himself to be the victim of such occurrence. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner would not come within the purview of victim and accordingly had no locus-standi to file such criminal appeal. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in (2016) 2 Calcutta C.Cr.L.R. (Cal) 534 (Nirmal Kumar Batabyal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.). This Court by extending the definition of victim has observed that even the defacto complainant duly authorized by the victim is entitled to file an appeal. The factual scenario in the aforesaid case is not similar to the present one. One Head Master of a school was duped with a forged marksheet and thereby the head master attested the said forged marksheet. Subsequently, it was detected that the said marksheet is forged one. The head master lodged a written complaint before the police but after trial the accused was acquitted by learned trial Court. The head master preferred an appeal being authorized by the board and accordingly it was held that the head master himself was the victim of such case. Moreover, the head master was duly authorized by the board and accordingly the appeal is maintainable. In the case under reference the victim is the elder brother of the petitioner, and the petitioner has never been authorized by his own brother to prefer such appeal before the Court of sessions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable since the petitioner is not the victim of such case. The petitioner simply set the criminal law in motion and the petitioner has never been authorized by the actual victim of such offence. In other way it may be placed that the elder brother of the petitioner is only competent to compound the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code being the aggrieved person, if the value of such product is below the amount as stipulated under Section 320 (Schedule 2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner cannot compound the case. The reason is obvious. The petitioner is not the victim of such offence.

3. Therefore, learned first appellate Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal holding inter-alia that the petitioner would not come within the purview of the d