9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1 and Mr. P.N. Muley, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 2 ORDER A.M. Thipsay, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. The applicant is the original accused. He was being prosecuted on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal had been filed by claiming that the original complainant was a victim, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. The proviso to Section 372 was inserted by Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Amendment Act, 2008 (5 of 2009)], with effect from 31-12-2009. The proviso was inserted with the object of giving an opportunity to the persons who are affected by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a complainant could not have filed an appeal claiming to be a 'victim'. Consequently, the appeal filed by him before the Court of Sessions was not at all maintainable. The proceedings before the Court of Sessions were a nullity. The trial and the order of allowing the appeal is to be treated as 'non-est'. 4. Consequently, the Revision Application succeeds. The order dated 16- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
