Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 373 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.12. 2011 Som Raj, son of Sh. Uttam Singh, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. …..Appellant. Versus 1. Piar Singh, son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Raj Kumar, son of Shri Pyar Singh, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. 3. Laxmi Devi, wife of Shri Pyar Singh, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. 4. Laxmi Devi, wife of Shri Pritam Chand, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. 5. Santosh Kumari, wife of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. …. Respondents/accused. 6. Vinod Kumar, son of Shri Pritam Singh, resident of Makrar, Post Office Lapiyana, Sub Tehsil Haar Chakkian, District Kangra, H.P. …. Juvenile in conflict with law. Criminal Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 2.7.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class–I, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in criminal case No.152/II/09/09. - 2 - Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): The present appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the victim in a State case against the acquittal of the respondents in a Criminal Case No.152/II/09/09 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-I, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The State has not filed their appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 2. Heard. 3. Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the “victim” shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation but it shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinary lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 4. In the case in hand, had the accused been convicted then the Court of Sessions was competent to hear and decide the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal against the acquittal by the complainant in the High Court is not - 3 - maintainable, as such, it is ordered to be returned to the complainant in accordance with the procedure alongwith copy of this order to present it in the appropriate Court if so advised. The time w.e.f. 30th September, 2011, till it remained pending in this Court shall be excluded from the period of limitation. 19th December, 2011. (Surinder Singh),J. k.sharma