Sukhpal Singh vs Manoj and 6 Others

Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. submits that in Government Appeal No. 3701 of 2013, Sanjay has also been impleaded as one of respondents and his name appears at serial no. 5 of the array of the respondents. Sanjay has been convicted and the State has not filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence imposed upon Sanjay, the present appeal is confined only to the acquittal part of the judgment as regards the other respondents. Sri Srivastava requests the deletion of the name of Sanjay S/o Kiran Singh from the array of the respondents. Let the name of Sanjay S/o Kiran Singh be struck off and deleted from the array of accused-respondents and renumber the respondents by placing Jain at serial no. 5 and Dinesh at serial no. 6.

We have heard Sri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Advocate on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

Considering the submission and the statements made in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, we condone the delay of about 16 days in filing the Criminal Appeal Defective No. 94 of 2013.

Office to allot a regular number to the above noted defective appeal.

We have heard Sri Azim Ahmad Kazmi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and we find that the appeal filed by the informant of the case u/s 372 Proviso seeks the enhancement of the substantive sentence of imprisonment as also of fine which was imposed upon respondent no. 7, Sanjay. We want to refer to a judgment passed by this Bench on 06.09.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application u/s 372 (Leave to Appeal) No. 307 of 2013 which was also an appeal in which the informant had sought the indulgence of the Court to enhance the sentence which had been passed upon the respondent-accused of that case. We have already, after analysing the provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C., held that no locus standi or right to appeal has been created in favour of a victim of the offence or, as in the present case, to an informant to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence u/s 372 Cr.P.C. or under the whole scheme of chapter XXIX. The right appears reserved for the State only U/S. 374 Cr.P.C.

In that view of the matter, the appeal as regards the prayer for enhancing the sentence passed upon Sanjay is dismissed as not maintainable.

We have also heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. on the admission of the connected government appeal.

Let the two appeals be admitted for hearing as against all respondents except Sanjay who has already been convicted and has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2786 of 2013 to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

These two appeals shall be connected not only with each other but also with Criminal Appeal No. 2786 of 2013 preferred by Sanjay in which connection, we believe, the office of the court has already received the lower court records. In case the lower court records have not been received office to take steps for sending for the records of Session Trials No. 287 and 933 both of year 2009 from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad, and the court below shall ensure that the records are made available to this court in a maximum period of four weeks. The court below is directed to issue warrant of arrest bailable against the respondents to enforce their appearance before it. The court below shall ensure, by taking all steps necessary, that the respondents-accused persons, who have been acquitted by it, are forced to appear before it.