Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2014. Case: Mrs. Sushama Sushilkumar Dalmia Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. H.H. Ponda, Senior Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate, Mrs. Anamika Malhotra, APP |
| Judges | A. R. Joshi, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A, 306, 34; Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 372, 378, 392 |
| Judgement Date | June 15, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
|
P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this appeal which is preferred by the victim challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. A preliminary objection raised in the present appeal is on the question whether the victim is required to obtain leave of this Court so as to prefer an appeal under the amended Section 372 of Cr.P.C.. This objection was raised on behalf of the respondents. Counter to these arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balasaheb Rangnath Khade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., 2013 AllMR 1153 (Cri). Apart from this decision, other authorities are also cited before this Court on behalf of the appellant i.e. the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company and Ltd., 2007 CriLJ 2417. 3. At the threshold it must be mentioned that the first authority cited before this Court in the case of Balasaheb Khade (supra) shows that initially both the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Balasaheb Khade (supra) had different view on the aspect whether the leave under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is contemplated and required to be taken when the appeal is preferred by the victim under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.. When there was difference in views of Judges of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third Judge. Even the decision of the third Judge (Coram: Mrs. Roshan DalviJ.) is reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1184, wherein the learned third Judge has dealt with this aspect in detail and has come to the conclusion that the rights of the victim are at par with those rights available with the accused in preferring the appeal before this Court challenging his conviction. After going through the ratio propounded by the said authority, it must be said that this is a judgment of the Division Bench in view of the provisions of Section 392 of Cr.P.C. and Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules. As such it is a factual position that this issue at hand whether the victim is required to obtain leave while preferring an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., has already been decided and the decision of the Division Bench clearly indicates that no such leave is required. Moreover the right vesting with the victim is more than the right which is vested with the State... |
To continue reading
Request your trial