JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 3. The petitioner first informant and also the victim within the meaning of Clause 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has preferred present petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge- 17, Nagpur, dismissing the application for condonation of delay allegedly occurred in preferring an appeal against order of acquittal recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. 4. Considering the short controversy involved in the matter, it is wholly unnecessary to narrate the details except stating that upon the report lodged by first informant, Ajni Police Station registered the crime for offence under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code against respondent no.1. After the investigation, the respondent no. 1 was charge sheeted by said Police Station for commission of such offence and was ultimately tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The said case ended into the acquittal of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner intended to prefer an appeal against the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.03.2010 in Summary Case No.10/1990 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. However, under an erroneous impression that period of limitation for preferring such an appeal is prescribed under the law, he presented an application for condonation of delay occurred in preferring the said appeal. The said application was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 1873 of 2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-17, Nagpur dismissed said application for reason recorded in order dated 01.02.2012. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention to the decision delivered by Principal Seat at Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.991 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No.992 of 2011 decided on 21.09.2011 : [2013 ALL MR(Cri) 1153] (Mr. Balasaheb Rangnath Khade .vs. The State of Maharashtra) and particularly the matters stated in para 20,23 and 26 therein and so also by laying finger upon the earlier decisions in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No. 978 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2011, submitted that said decisions reveal that no period of limitation is prescribed for preferring such an appeal for enforcing the right conferred upon petitioner by proviso of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended on 31.12.2009. It is submitted that in such circumstances the application preferred for condonation of delay was superfluous and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have disposed it accordingly and dealt with the appeal presented in accordance with the law. It is submitted that instead of doing so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application made for condonation of delay, has resulted in negativing the right conferred upon the petitioner by proviso of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel urged that dismissal of said application being on erroneous footing that period of limitation is prescribed for preferring an appeal under section 372 of the Code, it cannot be legally sustained and as such liable to be quashed and set aside. It is urged that for enabling the petitioner to enforce the right conferred upon him, the order be quashed and set aside and proper directions be given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for considering the appeal presented by him in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 after considering the decisions pointed out, submitted for passing the orders as deem fit and proper by the Court. 7. A perusal of the decisions to which the attention was drawn and so also the decisions referred in the said case in terms supports the submission canvased by learned counsel for the petitioner that no period of limitation is prescribed for preferring an appeal provisio of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either in the provisions of the Code or by any other provision, as otherwise erroneously assumed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Though it is true that period of limitation has been prescribed for State for making an application for seeking leave against the judgment and order of acquittal under the provisions of Section 378 (5) of Cr.P.C., no such a provision has been found incorporated either in the proviso or otherwise in the code. The learned APP appearing in the matter has also fairly submitted of no such period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring such an appeal, now allowed to be preferred by the victims of crime. 8. Having regard to the position regarding period of limitation for such an appeal, the application preferred by the petitioner was clearly superfluous. The learned APP appearing in the matter has also fairly submitted of no such period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring such an appeal, now allowed to be preferred by the victims of crime. 8. Having regard to the position regarding period of limitation for such an appeal, the application preferred by the petitioner was clearly superfluous. However, merely because of preferring of such a superfluous application cannot deprive the petitioner consideration of appeal presented by him before the Court of Sessions. The perusal of the order impugned in the petition reveals that the same had been passed upon erroneous footing of period of limitation being prescribed for such an appeal. The matters in the said order on the contrary also reveal that since the beginning the petitioner was attempting to take the proceedings for redressal of his grievance. The foundation on which the order was passed being erroneous, the same cannot be legally sustained. Hence the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Resultantly the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-17, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No.1873 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside, maintaining the dismissal of the said application due to the application being superfluous, with a direction to the said Court to consider the appeal, in accordance with law. 10. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.