1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 917/2010 (Sadashivrao Shamrao Thakre .vs. State of Maharashtra through the P.S. Rural Police Station Yavatmal and ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for Respondent no.1/State. Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 6 .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 16, 2011 Heard. By the present application, the applicant who claims to be the founder member of one Sadhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal has sought leave under Section 378 (4) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006 allowing the said appeal and setting aside judgment and order dated 4.9.2006 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 317/1999 convicting respondents no.2 to 6 i.e. original accused in said case for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC and acquitting them from charge of commission of 2 such offence. Mr. Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3,4,5 and 6 in pursuance to the notice before admission issued, has urged that the applicant/appellant has no locus standi to make the present application seeking leave to prefer an appeal as he was neither first informant/complainant or the victim of said offence and as such the proceedings intended to be taken by him should be summarily dismissed. The learned APP has also supported the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 6 and stated that the original prosecution was launched upon the police report. It is stated that the applicant was neither informant in the said case nor the victim for the offences for which the challan was submitted. The learned counsel for the applicant tried to justify preferring of proceedings by stating that the applicant was permitted to assist the prosecution by the appellate Court and in view of the same he is entitled to prefer the proceedings of present nature. It is extremely difficult to accept the said submission. Such a conclusion is inevitable after carefully considering the provisions relating to the appeals found embodied in Section 372 to Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Out of the same, the provisions of Section 372 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 in terms reveals that right to prefer an appeal is a statutory right and the same can be exercised only if the same is conferred under any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 3 However, the proviso to the said section added by the Amendment Act confers such a right upon a victim to the forum as stated in the said proviso. Notably the applicant/appellant being not the victim of the crime, he will not be entitled to prefer any appeal under the provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C. The perusal of the further provisions pertaining particularly to the appeal in case of acquittal are found provided in Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Without unnecessarily dilating about each clause contained in the said section, it can be safely said that in case of judgment and order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon police report, such right is conferred only upon Public Prosecutor subject to leave for the same being granted by this Court. The provisions of Section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the complainant can seek a special leave to appeal only in the cases instituted upon the complaint. Thus after carefully considering the said provisions contained in Section 378 and so also in the further sections, it is difficult to accept that the present applicant/appellant has any right to either seek a leave to prefer an appeal against order of acquittal recorded in the said case instituted upon police report in which he was neither complainant/first informant or the victim of the said offence. Needless to add that police case was registered as a investigation of crime registered upon report lodged by one Gajanan Ganpat Domale and not by present appellant. Having regard to the same, the application is devoid of merits and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. 4 Criminal APPP No. 76/2011 In view of disposal of main application, the present application also stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai