JUDGMENT : R. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. This Crl. Appeal No. 52475 of 2017 has been filed against the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No. 221 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dated 16.08.2017. 2. By the said Judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused persons. Aggrieved over the said Judgment, though the prosecution/State has not preferred any appeal, the defacto complainant, as a victim, has preferred this appeal. 3. Since this appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate Court, the appellant has filed this petition to seek Special Leave from this Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On verifying this appeal as well as the Special Leave Petition, the Registry has raised an objection as to the maintainability of this appeal as well as the Special Leave Petition, in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, as well as the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in S. Ganapathy vs. N. Senthilvel, 2016 (4) CTC 119 . 5. Since the appellant has still insisted that the appeal would lie before this Court and therefore, he would be entitled to maintain this appeal, the Registry has posted this matter for maintainability. 6. I have heard Mr. M. Ramamoorthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He would submit that in the Judgment impugned, the accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the appeal would lie only before this Court since the offences are punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC, for which he sought for Special Leave under Section 378(4) of the Code. 7. I have perused the Judgment which is impugned herein whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused persons. 8. In this regard, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, can be rightly pressed into service, which reads thus: 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. 8. In this regard, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, can be rightly pressed into service, which reads thus: 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court, acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 9. According to the said proviso to Section 372 of CrPC the victim shall have the right of appeal against the order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of such Court. 10. The words conviction of such Court employed in proviso to Section 372 makes it abundantly clear that, if a conviction has come in a case prosecuted by setting the law in motion by the complainant, then the appeal would normally lie only before the Sessions Court. But, in this case, since the order of acquittal had come from the Magistrate Court, the appeal ordinarily would lie only before the Sessions Court. 11. Therefore, since it has come by way of appeal against acquittal by such Court, i.e., the Magistrate Court, the appeal under proviso to Section 372 would also lie only before the sessions Court not before this Court. 12. Moreover, in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in S. Ganapathy vs. N. Senthilvel, 2016 (4) CTC 119 , the victim have rights to file an appeal before the First Appellate Court/Sessions Court against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate Court and therefore, following the dictum of Full Bench of this Court in tune with Section 372 of the Code, I am of the view that the present appeal now preferred by the appellant, shall lie only before the concerned Sessions Court, where ordinarily, the appeal would lie. 13. In view of the above, Office objection is sustained. 14. 13. In view of the above, Office objection is sustained. 14. Since this appeal has been preferred before this Court and has been pending for all these days and today only, it is resolved by way of this order, it is open to the appellant to take back the case papers and file the same before the concerned Sessions Court and if such a filing is made before the Sessions Court, the limitation shall not stand in the way and accordingly, the Sessions Court shall take up the matter and proceed further in accordance with the Code. 15. The Registry is directed to return the case papers to the appellant forthwith.