ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned Counsel for Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for Respondent-State and Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-Society. None appears for Respondent No.3/ Complainant/Victim, though served.

2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 25.9.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Appeal No.39/2019, whereby the Appellate Court i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara has rejected the objections raised by the Petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the appeal filed by Respondent No.2 Society.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant/Victim i.e. Respondent No.3 Lakhan Baghmar had lodged a written report in the Police Station, Suhela alleging that Rs.5,30,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn by some one from his Account No.624053030021 of District Sahakari Kendriya Maryadit Bank, Branch Bhatbhera by using his Kisaan Credit Card at Suhela SBI ATM and Hirmi SBI ATM centers between 14.6.2017 to 23.7.2017. Upon investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage and memorandum statements of the witnesses, the Petitioner was arrested and the matter was put to trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, Distrit Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the charges under Sections 409, 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 3.2.2018, after considering the entire pleadings and the evidence, acquitted the Petitioner of the charges under Section 409, 418 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Thereafter, the said judgment dated 3.2.2018 passed by the Trial Court, was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Court in an appeal i.e., Criminal Appeal No.39/2019, filed by Respondent No.2 herein i.e. Primary Krishi Sakh Sahakari Gramin Sewa Samiti, Suhela, though the said Society was not a party before the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court, by the impugned Order dated 25.9.2019, entertained the appeal filed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the objections that were put forth by the Petitioner in respect of the maintainability of the said appeal filed by Respondent No.2. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking for the following relief:-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the Court below.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned Order dated 25.9.2019 (Annexure P-1).

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of acquittal appeal pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Criminal Appeal No.39/2019.

10.4 That, any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the award of the cost of the petition may be given."

5. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner primarily is that the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Court is unjust, illegal and bad in law, for the reason that the Respondent No.2 was not a party to the proceeding before the Trial Court and the Respondent No.2 as such has no locus to file the appeal against the judgment passed by the Trial Court. The said judgment was not even challenged by the State or by the Complainant/Victim himself and the Respondent No.2 was not at all an aggrieved party to the said proceeding. The Respondent No.2 had not even filed any application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court before the Appellant Court.

6. Further contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the Respondent No.2 Society has filed the said appeal through Shri Dhwaja Ram Sahu in the capacity of his being the Branch Manager of the said Society. The Respondent No.2 has been described as witness by the Prosecution in the proceeding before the Trial Court and the statement of