Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The neat question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether complainant is entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate Criminal Court arising out of criminal complaint filed by complainant or he is required to prefer an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C before this Court after obtaining leave? The applicant/complainant herein filed an criminal complaint against the non-applicant No. 1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act, 1881' for brevity) before jurisdictional Criminal Court.

2. The said Court by its judgment dated 30/11/2012, acquitted the non-applicant No. 1 herein holding that the applicant/complainant has failed to bring home the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal, the applicant/complainant preferred an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. questioning the said judgment of acquittal.

4. By the impugned judgment, the Third Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal against the judgment of acquittal in a complaint case under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and remedy of the complainant lies is to file appeal before High Court after obtaining leave under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Questioning the said judgment, dismissing his appeal as not maintainable, the present revision has been filed by the present applicant/complainant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Appearing for the applicant, Mr. Atul Pandey, learned counsel would submit that the applicant/complainant also comes within the meaning of 'victim' as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Criminal Appellate Court (Court of Session) under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as such, the impugned order holding that the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court by preferring appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is clearly unsustainable and bad in law. Mr. Pandey placed heavy reliance on decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 779/2012 (Sunder Das Rohra v. Anil Mishra) decided on 15/04/2013.

7. Appearing for the non-applicant No. 1, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel would submit that against the judgment of acquittal in a complaint case filed by the complainant, his/her sole remedy is only to file appeal under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. by obtaining leave from the High Court. She would further submit that the definition of 'victim' as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. does not include the complainant of a complaint case and as such, the appeal has rightly been dismissed as not maintainable by the Court of Session as the remedy of complainant lies to file appeal after obtaining leave of this Court under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on this legal question and has considered their rival submission and examined the record with utmost circumspection.

9. In order to judge the correctness of the impugned judgment, it would be proper to notice certain statutory provision under Section 2(wa) as well as Sections 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C.:--

"2(wa). "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression 'Victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir."

"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.--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 f