Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Appeal U/S 372 CrPC For Enhancement Of Punishment Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay
13 Aug 2022 8:16 AM GMT
Speedy Trial, Allahabad High Court, Right, Not Only, Complainant, Accused, Discharges, Man, 24-Year-Old Criminal Case, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC is not maintainable if it has been filed seeking enhancement of punishment awarded to the accused.

It may be noted that Section 372 CrPC provides a right 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] to move an appeal on three grounds namely

(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;

(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence;

(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar in its order clarified that the appeal filed by the victim for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable under Section 372 Cr.P.C. [No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided]
In this regard, the Court also relied upon the apex court's ruling in the case of
Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 496
, wherein it was held (in light of Section 372 CrPC) that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequacy of sentence.

The case in brief

The Court was dealing with the appeal filed along with a delay condonation application by one Archana Devi. The Court was informed that a delay of 122 days was present in the filing of the appeal.

On the other hand, counsel Rakesh Dubey (appearing for the accused-respondent in the case) drew Court's attention to the prayer clause to submit that the appeal had been filed for enhancement of the sentence.

Further, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Parvinder Kansal, it was further submitted that the appeal for enhancement of punishment u/s 372, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court also noted that since the appeal itself was not maintainable, therefore there is no question of considering on delay condonation application, accordingly, the delay condonation application was also rejected.

Case title - Archana Devi v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 1 of 2014]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 367

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Next Story