1. The appellant is the victim. This unnumbered appeal has been filed by the victim against the order of acquittal of the accused in S.C. No. 408 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - 1, Kasargod.

2. The Registry has refused to number the appeal and has noted a defect which reads as follows:

"As per the decision reported in Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2015(9) SC 281], an application for leave to appeal is required."

3. Sri. B. Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that only a composite application is required and there is no necessity to file a separate application for leave. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajastan v. Ramdeen and Others [1977 (2) SCC 630] and of this Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Razak [2001 (1) KLT 750]. According to the learned counsel, he has prayed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment impugned as the first prayer.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

5. In Satya Pal Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that a right of questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim including the legal heir and others, as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., under proviso to Section 372 of the Code, but only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub-section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C.

6. The only question is whether a separate application for leave is required before preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal and whether only on grant of such a leave an appeal can be entertained.

7. Section 378(3) reads as follows:

"No appeal to the High Court under Sub­section (1) or sub-Section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

However, Section 378(4) of the Code which deals with appeals filed against an order of acquittal is worded differently. It reads as follows:

378(4): If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

8. While Section 378(3) of the Code contemplates only a leave prior to entertainment of the appeal by the High Court, Section 378(4) of the Code places greater restrictions. The complainant has to file an application and unless special leave to appeal is granted by the High Court, the appeal cannot be presented before Court.

9. M/s. Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner I, Sales Tax & Anr. [AIR 1968 SC 488], the Apex Court had occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'entertain' in Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rule 66(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court held that when the proviso to the above section speaks of entertainment of the appeal, it means that appeal, even if was filed, will not be admitted for consideration, unless there is satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of the admitted tax. It was held that the word 'entertain1 means 'admit to consideration'.

10. In Ramdeen (supra), identical question raised in this case had come up for consideration of the Apex Court. In the said case, against an order of acquittal, the State of Rajastan preferred an application describing it as a petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code with a prayer to accept the said petition to file an appeal. The application was described as one under Section 378(3) of the Code and all the facts and other requisites for a memorandum of appeal including the grounds were raised in the said application. The High Court after hearing the State granted leave to appeal. The appeal was thereafter filed after the period of 90 days prescribed under Section 114(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal was taken up and the same was dismissed