No fault can be found in the order passed by the Division Bench dealing with the appeal preferred by the companyplainant as that cannot survive after the Coordinate Bench had given the stamp of imprimatur to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge in the Government Appeal.
On a perusal of the material on record, there cannot be any dispute that the appellant was the companyplainant and the real aggrieved party.
944 of 2007 wherein the accused persons faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 328, 323, 506, 368 and 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
Regard being had to the essential companystitutional companycept of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India as has been stated in Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham1 and the pronouncement by the Constitution Bench in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam2 where the assail was to the decision in Arunachalam supra under Article 32, we allow the application and permit the applicant to prosecute the Special Leave Petition.
1674 of 2011 which has also been dismissed by another Division Bench on the foundation that when the Government Appeal had already met its fate of dismissal, there was numberjustification to entertain the said appeal.
Dipak Misra, J. CRL.M.P. NO.
Leave granted.
24427 OF 2012 This is an application for grant of permission to file Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for assailing the judgment and order dated 4.7.2012 passed in Government Appeal No.
3432 of 2011 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the Bench declined to entertain the appeal directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, she has sought permission to prefer the special leave petition.
