A.M. Babu, J.

1. Is a period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) by a victim? If not, within what time shall be filed such an appeal? These are the questions to be considered. The Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The mother of the person murdered sought leave under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C to appeal against the acquittal. The application seeking the leave came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench noticed that the memorandum of appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation stipulated in Article 114 of the Limitation Act. The Division Bench made an order of reference doubting the correctness of the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Vinod v. State of Kerala 2016 (1) KHC 674 : 2016 (1) KLD 308 : 2016 (1) KLT 680. The decision in Vinod's case holds that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The order of reference refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. 2015 KHC 4662 : 2015 AIR SCW 6251 : 2015 (5) KHC SN 25 : 2015 (2) KLD 758 : 2015 (10) SCALE 444 : 2015 CriLJ 4929 : (2015) 15 SCC 613. That decision holds that an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C can be filed by a victim only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. The reference order states that the period of limitation prescribed under Article 114 of the Limitation Act for appeals under Section 378(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C shall apply to an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C since such an appeal requires the leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C as is necessary in the case of appeals under Section 378(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. Since Vinod's case (supra) holds the contra view, a reference is made to the Full Bench for appropriate decision.

2. Heard Sri. Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned public prosecutor. Advocate Sri. K.A. Salil Narayanan was appointed amicus curiae. We heard the learned amicus curiae also.

3. Section 2(wa) which defines the term 'victim' and the proviso to Section 372 which confers a right of appeal on the victim were inserted in the Cr.P.C by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009). Those provisions came into effect on 31/12/2009. Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C reads thus:

"victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

4. Section 372 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

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.

5. The proviso confers a right of appeal on the victim against three kinds of orders. They are (i) an order acquitting the accused, (ii) an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence and (iii) an order imposing inadequate compensation.

6. The learned amicus curiae has submitted that the period of limitation prescribed under clause (b) of Article 115 of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal by the victim against an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence and also to an appeal against an order imposing inadequate compensation. The submission is well founded. Clause (b) of Article 115, Limitation Act, prescribes a period of limita