BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.

These two Criminal Appeals along with a Misc. Criminal Application filed in one of these two appeals have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi & Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.), vide order dated 27th June, 2012 for considering the following issues :

(i) Whether an appeal filed by the victim, invoking his right under proviso to Sec. 372 of Cr.P.C, challenging acquittal, or conviction for a lesser offence, or awarding inadequate compensation, is not maintainable, on the ground that the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose?

(ii) Whether an appeal filed by the State should not be entertained, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim invoking his right under proviso to Sec. 372 of Cr. P. c., against the same order, is admitted by the Court?

(iii) If the victim prefers an appeal before this Court, challenging the acquittal, invoking his right under proviso to Sec. 372 of Cr.P.C., whether that appellant is required to first seek leave of the Court, as is required in case of appeal being preferred by the State?

2. The above two appeals are directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.147 of 2010 by which the accused therein, who were charged for the offences punishable under Sees. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, were acquitted.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2012 was preferred by the widow of the deceased invoking her right under the proviso to Sec. 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code). The same order of acquittal was also challenged by the State of Gujarat by filing Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2012 along with an application seeking leave to prefer appeal, being Misc. Criminal Application No. 6516 of 2012.

4. When those two appeals and the application praying for leave to appeal by the State were listed for hearing before a Division Bench (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi & Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.), the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to two earlier decisions taken by two different Division Benches of this Court, one in the case of Bhikhabhai Motibhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 5522 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2010 (Coram: Jayant Patel and Z. K. Saiyed, D.) (reported in 2010 (4) GLR 3301) and the other, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Chaudhary (Patel) Pababhai Devabhai, in Misc. Criminal Application No.4350 of 2011 (Coram: D. H. Waghela and J. C. Upadhyay, D.)

5. In the case of Bhikhabhai Motibhai Chavda, Misc. Cri. A. No. 5222 of 2009 and Cri. A. 783 of 2010 : (2010 (4) GLR 3301), the Division Bench was of the view that once an appeal is filed by the State against an order of acquittal, the subsequent appeal filed by the victim against the self same order of acquittal is not maintainable.

6. In the other case, viz. State of Gujarat v. Chaudhary (Patel) Pababhai Devabhai, Misc. Cri. A. No. 4350 of 2011, the other Division Bench took the view that the victim having already filed an appeal from the self same order of acquittal and the same being admitted and the State being a party therein, the subsequent application for leave to appeal filed by the State was not required to be entertained, and consequently, the same was disposed of without entering into the merits.

7. The Division Bench (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi and Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.), however, after taking into consideration various provisions of the Code, was of the opinion that the aforesaid question was required to be re-looked into for the purpose of deciding whether the appeal filed by the victim under the proviso to Sec. 372 of CLP.C. would not be maintainable in spite of specific right conferred upon the victim by the statute, only on the ground that the State had already' filed an appeal against the self same order, and also for considering whether the appeal f