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 C