[CASE NUMBER] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT [PRECEDENT] under [SECTION] [ACT] against the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh District Sriganganagar. Date of Judgment : 1.3.2013. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. [ENTITY], J. Mr. [ENTITY] for the appellant. Mr. [ENTITY] for the respondents. BY THE COURT:
In this matter, I have heard both the parties on the interpretation of [SECTION], [ACT] in relation to [SECTION], [ACT]
It is agreed position that as per the amended [SECTION], [ACT], 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.
[SECTION], [ACT] was amended on 31.12.2009 by adding a proviso to it by Amendment Act 5 of 2009 (Section 29).
[CASE NUMBER] Law of procedure may be applicable retrospectively as was held in the following rulings:
([PRECEDENT], ([PRECEDENT], ([PRECEDENT].
The appellant-complainant has challenged in this appeal the acquittal order in Criminal Case for the offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh District Sriganganagar whereby the learned lower court acquitted the accused from the charge under [SECTION] of [ACT].
Such type of appeal could have been and should have been filed in the Addl.Sessions Court, Suratgarh first and only thenafter the aggrieved party could have challenged the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh in this Court. So after hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that while [SECTION] of [ACT] confers jurisdiction of hearing appeal against acquittal on the High Court, the amended [SECTION] [ACT] does so on the Sessions Court. But it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior court are made out.
[CASE NUMBER] In the present matter, the propriety requires that the appellant-complainant should have gone to the Sessions Court first and only thenafter, if aggrieved, he should have approached this Court. This Court does not encourage the trend of filing of appeals directly before this Court when the matter could have been heard and disposed of by the Sessions Court under [SECTION], [ACT]
It is pertinent to note here that amended [SECTION] of [ACT] was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when [PRECEDENT] was decided by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Same is the case with the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by this High Court in [PRECEDENT] where also provisions of amended proviso of [SECTION] of [ACT] were not brought to the notice of the High Court. So the aforesaid rulings also do not come in the way of process of filing of appeal by victim against acquittal order passed by Magistrate before the concerned Sessions Judge.
Resultantly, the petition for leave to appeal of the complainant is hereby returned to the petitioner for presentation before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh. The office shall return the original application/appeal to the petitioner after making proper [CASE NUMBER] endorsements on it and after retaining a true copy thereof. The petitioner shall thenafter immediately present the same, if he choses to do so to the concerned Sessions Judge, who will entertain and decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed directed to appear before learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Suratgarh for this purpose on 4.4.2013 at 10.00 a.m. The delay caused and time consumed by this Court in disposing the matter will not affect prejudicially to the appellant under the law of limitation and this delay will be ignored by the lower court under this order.
The petition for leave to appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.
( [ENTITY]
Mlt/15