JUDGMENT : We have perused the Office report dated 03.02.2021, according to which the limitation for filing instant appeal is 90 days and not 60 days, therefore, we treat the appeal as within limitation. 2. This appeal was filed by Sageer Khan informant and father of the victim. The victim on the date of alleged crime is said to have been a minor, however, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that on the date of filing of this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. i.e. 28.01.2021, she had attained the age of majority and is surviving. 3. This Court on 04.02.2021 noticing the aforesaid defect passed the following order:- "Learned AGA has pointed out defect in array of parties to the effect that guardian of victim has filed appeal while victim still survives, which is not in tune of Full Bench decision of this Court reported in [2016 (97) ACC 861]; Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others. Counsel for appellant seeks time to rectify the defect. List this appeal in next week as fresh." 4. The Full Bench in Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2016 (97) ACC 861, has considered the meaning and purport of Section 2(wa) and 372 Cr.P.C., and has held as under:- "70. From the discussions that have been made above, it is clear that the proviso of section 372 is an exception to the general law and same confers on a victim a right to appeal against acquittal, which is subject to the grant of leave by the Court. The first part of the definition of ‘victim’ as given under section 2(wa) (i.e. “Victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged), is required to be construed in its literal sense and no liberal interpretation is required, Accordingly, only such person would be treated as “victim’, who is the subject-matter of trial being direct sufferer of crime in terms of loss or injury caused to his own body, mind, reputation and property and such loss or injury is one of the ingredient of the offence for which the accused person has been charged and, therefore, any other person cannot be accepted as victim within the first part of section 2(wa) for the purposes of maintaining appeal. The second part that is “includes his or her guardian and Legal Heir” would come into play when the actual sufferer is absent or suffers disability. 71. In other words, victim means the actual sufferer of offence (receiver of harm caused by the alleged offence) and no person other than actual receiver of harm can be treated as victim of offence, so as to provide him/her right to prefer appeal under the proviso of section 372, though, in his or her absence or disability, his “legal heir” or “guardian” would qualify as victim and have a right to appeal. A person who claims himself to be ‘guardian’ or ‘legal heir’ of actual victim (direct sufferer), would be able to maintain appeal provided he establishes his claim as such before the Court in his application by disclosing his particulars; relationship with the direct sufferer; and the grounds on which such claim of being “legal heir” or “guardian” is based. In the light of the discussion made above, the ratio of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Edal Singh (supra) is in tune with the definition of ‘victim’ as provided under section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference is answered accordingly. 72. Let the order as well as the record be placed before appropriate Bench dealing with the “Leave to Appea1” application." 5. It opined that the word victim as occurring in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. means the actual sufferer of offence (receiver of harm caused by the alleged offence) and no person other than actual receiver of harm can be treated as victim of offence, so as to provide him/her right to prefer appeal under the proviso of Section 372, though, in his or her absence or disability, his "legal heir" or "guardian" would qualify as victim and have a right to appeal. Thereafter, it has delved into the question as to how the guardian or legal heir could file the appeal. It upheld the pronouncement of the Division Bench in Edal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.172 of 2014 and answered the reference made to it accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon an interim order dated 17.01.2019 passed by this Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. bearing No.166 of 2018 (Chunni Lal Vs. in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.172 of 2014 and answered the reference made to it accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon an interim order dated 17.01.2019 passed by this Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. bearing No.166 of 2018 (Chunni Lal Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.), wherein the appeal by the informant was held to be maintainable in view of definition of victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representative Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 752 . However, when we perused the said order we find no mention of the fact as to whether the victim in the said case was alive, was a minor or had attained the age of majority or whether she was surviving or not. Furthermore, when we go through the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), we find that the victim therein had died, therefore, obviously the factual circumstance before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case was different from the case at hand where not only the victim is surviving but she has also attained the age of majority on the date of filing the appeal. Therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision referred herein in above in Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) as also the language used in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. the informant who is the father of the victim can not maintain the appeal and it is prerogative of the victim of the case who alone can file this appeal. 7. Although, Full Bench has already considered the issue nevertheless it may be emphasized and reiterated that by defining the word victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. to mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged, it necessarily implies the person who has actually suffered the loss and a distinction has been drawn by the Legislature with regard to guardian or legal heir of such victim by including them in the definition clause separately by use of the word "includes his or her guardian or legal heir". The guardian or legal heir would come into picture only if the victim is a minor or is absent or is unable to file an appeal on account of some disability. The legal heir would come into picture when the victim does not survive. 8. There is another reason why we are persuaded to take this view, that is, assuming the victim does not wish to challenge the judgment of the Trial Court, but her father or any other relative misuses the process of law taking advantage of the words "guardian or legal heir" and files an appeal, for whatever reason, therefore, this mischief has also been warded off by the Legislature by making such a provision. 9. It is not the case of appellant before us that the victim, his daughter, is disabled. She is surviving and is married, therefore the appeal, if at all, could only be filed by her in her own name, whereas it has been filed by her father in his name. 10. Now when we peruse the application for impleadment allegedly filed on behalf of the victim for impleadment as an appellant, we find that it is supported by an affidavit of her father i.e. the existing appellant on whose behalf the appeal is not maintainable as already discussed. The application is not supported by the affidavit of victim nor any reason has been given in this regard. Moreover, we find that the victim has not engaged the learned counsel for filing this appeal as there is no Vakalatnama executed by her in his favour. 11. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable on behalf of the existing appellant the father of the victim. The application for impleadment is also not in order. For the reasons aforesaid it is also dismissed. However, it is always open for the victim to herself file the appeal but only as per law. 12. Certified copies of the documents filed alognwith this appeal be returned to the appellant as per rules of the Court.