1 cri-app.170-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.170 of 2011 Mr. Mohammed Lal ..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi, for the Appellant. Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 9th March, 2011 P.C. We have heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the appellant. By our order dated 21st February, 2011 we had directed the Registrar, Judicial, to record his opinion as to whether this appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., by the appellant against the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.206 of 2010 is maintainable. Accordingly, the Registrar, Judicial, has recorded his opinion and has held that the appellant does not fall in the definition of “victim” as defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. 2 cri-app.170-11 2. Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to submit that the deceased Modh. Sagir Shaikh was his brother. However, there is no such pleading in the appeal memo. In addition, the impugned order of the trial Court indicates that Modh. Sagir Shaikh had his own family consisting of his wife Kulsumbi and sons Saidul and Bashir. It was the prosecution case that Kulsumbi and Saidul were the accused and accused No.1 Kulsumbi had instigated accused No.2-Saidul to kill Modh. Sagir Shaikh. 3. We have also noted that the appellant was neither a complainant, who had filed F.I.R., nor cited as witness in support of the prosecution case. He was not before the Sessions Court in any capacity so as to support the prosecution case. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that the opinion recorded by the Registrar, Judicial, deserves to be accepted and hence the Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)