K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The question involved in these appeals at present is whether there is any period of limitation for filing an appeal by the victim challenging the acquittal of the accused and if so, what is the period of limitation. All these appeals are filed by the victims in the respective cases. There is no dispute that the appellants are victims as defined in S. 2(wa)of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeals were filed beyond ninety days from the date of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. The Registry raised an objection that the appeals are time barred. The appellants take the stand that since there is no period of limitation for filing an appeal by the victim, there is no need to file any application for condonation of delay.

2. The proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for an appeal by the victim. For the sake of convenience, Section 372 is extracted below:

"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 for the time being in force:

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

The proviso to Section 372 was inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009). The definition of "victim" was also introduced as Section 2(wa)by Act 5 of 2009.

3. The appeal which the victim may file as per the proviso to S. 372 shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. That means, the appeal by the victim would lie either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court, depending upon the Court which tried the case. Before the amendment of S. 372 by Act 5 of 2009, the victim, if he is a complainant, could file an appeal against acquittal under sub-s. (4) of S. 378 of the Code. But a victim who was not a complainant could only file a revision under S. 397 challenging the acquittal. After the amendment by Act 5 of 2009, for the first time, a right is conferred on the victim who is not a complainant to file an appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of inadequate compensation. Even after the amendment by Act 5 of 2009, sub-s.(4) of S. 378 is kept in tact.

4. Under Section 378(4) of the Code, an appeal against acquittal in a case instituted on complaint could be filed only after getting special leave to appeal. An application for granting special leave can be filed as provided under sub-s. (5) of S. 378 within six months if the complainant is a public servant, and within sixty days in every other case. The period of six months or sixty days, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of the order of acquittal. It is well settled that the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the judgment could be excluded under S. 12 of the Limitation Act for computing the period of limitation for filing an application for special leave to appeal. However, no period of limitation is provided for filing an appeal by a victim under the proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No leave is also necessary for filing such an appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since no period of limitation is provided for an appeal filed by the victim against acquittal as provided under the proviso to S. 372, the appeal can be filed at any time and the only question to be considered by the Court is whether the appellant has designedly or deliberately filed the appeal belatedly. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, even if no period of limitation is provi