IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1911 of 2009 Paramjeet Kaur wife of Sardar Gurmit Singh, resident of village- Guru Bazar, P.S. Barari, District-Katihar. .…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Ramadhar Yadav son of Shiv Pujan Yadav 3. Shiv Pujan Yadav son of Babu Lal Yadav 4. Dilip Yadav son of Shiv Pujan Yadav 5. Vivekanand Satyarthi son of Ramadhar Yadav All residents of Village-Guru Bazar, P.S. Barari, District-Katihar. …..Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 2. 14.12.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2009 by which the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. It is submitted that the informant has filed Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 2009 under Section 372 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008, against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the J.M. 1st Class in J.R. No. 1189 of 1997 by which the accused opposite parties have been acquitted. Since, there was amendment, the appeal should not have been dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Section 372 Cr. P.C. was amended by Amendment Act, 2008 but it has come into force with effect from 2 31.12.2009, as such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. It appears that Section 372 proviso has been added vide Section 29 of the Amendment Act, 2008. It has come into force with effect from 31.12.2009, as such, on 08.09.2009 the amendment has not come into force. Considering the position, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Saif/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)