1. - In this matter, I have heard the parties on the interpretation of proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C. in relation to Section 378(4), Cr.P.C.

2. It is agreed position that as per the amended proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C., the victim has been given a remedy of appeal against every acquittal order passed by the magistrate court and his appeal in such type of matters can be heard by the concerned Sessions Judge.

3. Section 372, Cr.P.C. was amended on 31.12.2009 by adding a proviso to it by Amendment Act 5 of 2009 (Section 29). Law of procedure may be applicable retrospectively as was held in the following rulings:

(1) Union of India v. Sukumar- AIR 1966 SC 1206,

(2) Nayyar G.P. v. Delhi Administration- AIR 1979 SC 602

(3) Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 394.

4. The appellant-complainant has challenged in this appeal the acquittal order in Criminal Case of Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 which was passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 712/2010,whereby the learned lower court acquitted the accused-respondent Amar Singh from the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act