JUDGMENT : Abdul Rehim, J. This is an application seeking special leave to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the wife of the victim (deceased) in a case which was tried by the Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod as SC No.1168/2012. She was also a witness in the said case, examined as PW7. The Sessions Court found the sole accused, who is the 2nd respondent herein, not guilty of the offences alleged and acquitted him under Section 232 Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the above appeal is sought to be preferred. 2. While considering the above petition, an incident question arose as to whether the appellant needs to obtain leave of this court for preferring the appeal, under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., in view of the right to appeal provided therein. The victim is provided with a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Therefore, one of the views agitated is that, no leave need to be obtained for preferring such an appeal. 3. In support of the above said contention, decision of a Division Bench of this court in Omana Jose V. State of Kerala ( 2014 (2) KLT 504 ) is cited. In the said case, this court interpreted the expression 'victim' in the context of the provisions in Sections 372 and 378 Cr.P.C. and observed that Section 372 Cr.P.C excludes the complainant in a complaint case from the purview of the definition of 'victim' contained in Section 2 (wa) of the Code, eventhough he is also a victim. Consequently, it was held that a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot challenge an order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 Cr. P.C. and his remedy is only to file an appeal to the High Court with special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code. While discussing the issue as to whether a complainant in a complaint case has got any right to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372, the court considered the amendment brought into Section 372 by virtue of Act 5 of 2009. While discussing the issue as to whether a complainant in a complaint case has got any right to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372, the court considered the amendment brought into Section 372 by virtue of Act 5 of 2009. In that context, it was observed thus:- "After the introduction of the definition of 'victim' in Section 2 (wa), the victim in a case instituted on police report can prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. No special leave to appeal is required in the case of an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372. If it is to be construed that a complainant in a complaint case can file an appeal to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 or to the High Court under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would mean that a complainant in a complaint case, who is the victim in the case, would have two remedies. If he chooses the remedy under the proviso to Section 372, he can file an appeal, as of right, to the Sessions Court and no special leave to appeal is required. If the aforesaid interpretation is accepted and if the complainant files appeal against acquittal before the High Court under Section 378 (4), special leave to appeal is required. It cannot be said that the law makers provided two remedies to the complainant in a complaint case (who is also a victim) to file an appeal before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. There is no provision either in Section 372 or in Section 378 that when an appeal against an order of acquittal is filed by the complainant before the Sessions Court, he is precluded from filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 378 (4) does not say that an appeal lies to the High Court only against an original order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Section 378 (4) does not say that an appeal lies to the High Court only against an original order of acquittal passed by the trial court. If it is to be interpreted that the proviso to Section 372 covers also an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case, what prevents the complainant from filing a further appeal to the High Court under Section 378 (4) if the Sessions court also acquits the accused confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial court? By the Amendment Act 5 of 2009, we are sure that the law makers did not provide such a remedy to the complainant in a complaint case, who is also a victim. It is not a case where the law makers provided concurrent remedies to the complainant in a complaint case to file appeal either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. If that is so, a provision similar to sub section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have been found a place either in Section 372 or in Section 378. Sub section (3) of Section 397 bars further revision by the same person who has already filed a revision either before the High Court or before the Sessions Court. Absence of such a provision like Section 397 (3) either in Section 372 or in Section 378 would also give an indication that the law makers did not provide concurrent jurisdiction on the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain an appeal against acquittal, by the victim in a complaint case." It is pointed out that, in the above quoted paragraph, there is an observation that no special leave to appeal is required in the case of appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr. P.C. 4. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant had cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh V. State of M.P. and others (JT 2015 (9) SC 281 : 2015 (4) KLT Suppl. 36 (SC)). P.C. 4. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant had cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh V. State of M.P. and others (JT 2015 (9) SC 281 : 2015 (4) KLT Suppl. 36 (SC)). While considering the question as to whether the father of the deceased has got a statutory right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C without obtaining leave of the High Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, the right to file such an appeal is provided to the victim, including the legal heirs of the victim, as defined under Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. But the general provision contained in Section 372 Cr.P.C provides that no appeal shall lie from an order of the criminal court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. The proviso to Section 372 was added only to qualify or to create an exemption to what is in the enactment and that the proviso is not to be interpreted as stating the general rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, while interpreting a proviso, care must be taken that it is used only to remove special cases from the general enactment and to provide for them separately. Taking note of the aforestated legal proposition, it was held that, the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. must be read along with its main enactment i.e., Section 372 itself, together with subsection (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, it was held that, the substantive proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C will be rendered nugatory as it clearly stated that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court, except as provided by the Code. Therefore, it was held that an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 can be filed only after obtaining leave of the High Court as required under sub section 3 of Section 378 Cr.P.C. 5. It is pertinent to note that the decision of this court in Omana Jose's case (supra) has not rendered any ratio on the point of necessity of obtaining special leave to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372, whereas the ruling of the Apex Court in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) is binding. It is pertinent to note that the decision of this court in Omana Jose's case (supra) has not rendered any ratio on the point of necessity of obtaining special leave to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372, whereas the ruling of the Apex Court in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) is binding. Therefore the observation in Omana Jose's case (supra) that, the victim can file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C as of right and no special leave to appeal is required, no more survives as good law in view of the binding nature of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) and that the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 can be filed only after getting leave as contemplated under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 6. In this regard we take note of the fact that the learned Judge (Hon'ble Justice K.T. Sankaran) who authored the judgment in Omana Jose's case (supra) had occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) while dealing with an identical issue in another Division Bench, in the case reported in Vinod V. State of Kerala ( 2016 (1) KLT 680 ). There it was observed that, in view of Satya Pal Singh's case (supra) leave of the High Court is required under sub section (3) of Section 378 to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372. But it is found that the period of limitation provided under Article 114 is only with respect to an appeal filed under Section 378 (1) and (2) and not with respect to an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr. P.C., and in respect of an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 no period of limitation is prescribed. It is observed that a period of limitation cannot be prescribed by an interpretational process. Hence it is found that no application to condone the delay is required along with an application for leave to appeal in such cases. 7. However, in the present case, the Registry has noted any delay in filing the application seeking special leave. Hence the question of limitation doesn't germane for consideration in the case at hand. 8. Hence it is found that no application to condone the delay is required along with an application for leave to appeal in such cases. 7. However, in the present case, the Registry has noted any delay in filing the application seeking special leave. Hence the question of limitation doesn't germane for consideration in the case at hand. 8. On the fact, we considered the merits of the above application and find that it is a fit case where the applicant, who is the wife of the deceased (victim) can be granted special leave under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the above application is allowed and the leave sought for is granted. The Registry will number the appeal and post the same for admission.