ORDER :

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.12.2017 passed by Shri Anuj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1538 of 2007 under Sections 363 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges. Further prayer has been made for quashing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2018 whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability even after filing of withdrawal petition vide Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 165 of 2018 under Section 409 of Cr.P.C. which was also disposed of on 20.11.2018 observing that the same is not maintainable.

2. The office has raised the question of maintainability of the present appeal before this court.

3. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 while observing that since the appeal was filed by the appellant-victim against the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons, the same was not maintainable and dismissed as such by relying on a full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Tuklal Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, 2018 (4) JBCJ 327 (HC).

4. I have gone through the judgment of the learned full bench of this Court rendered in the case of Tuklal Yadav (supra), the relevant part of the which is quoted herein-below:-

“40. To conclude, we answer the questions referred to the Full Court, as follows:-

*** *** ***

(4) The complainant, whether the State or a private person, who is also the victim as defined under section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. if aggrieved by the judgment/order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, shall have the only remedy against the order/judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, to seek special leave of the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. and in case the special leave is granted, to file appeal in the High Court itself.

*** *** ***

(7) In cases the victims are not the complainant, their cases cannot come under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Such victims as defined under section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. can avail the remedy of appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. In such cases, if the order/judgment of acquittal is passed by the Court of Magistrate, the appeal shall lie to the Court of Session, in which case there shall be no requirement to seek any leave to appeal. If the order/judgment of acquittal is passed by the Court of Session, the appeal shall lie to the High Court subject to leave to be taken under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.”

5. In the aforesaid judgment, the learned Full Bench of this Court has made distinction between the “complainant-victim” and a “victim who is not a complainant.” It has been held that if any complainant-victim is aggrieved by a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court then he/she shall have to seek special leave of the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. and if the leave is granted, may file appeal to the High Court. However, if the victim is not the complainant, he/she can avail the remedy of appeal under the proviso to section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

6. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, has observed that the distinction between the “complainant-victim” and a “victim, who was not the complainant” is an artificial and unnecessary distinction.

7. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-

“34. On the third question, the Full Bench noted that if the victim restricts the appeal to the grievance to inadequacy of the compensation or punishment for a lesser offence, it does not become an appeal against acquittal but the appeal is really directed against “any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal” within the meaning of Article 115(b) of the