JUDGMENT : 1. This application is filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking leave of this Court to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 04.02.2020 in Special (POCSO)Case No.28 of 2019. The respondent accused was charged and tried for having committed the offences punishable under Section 354A(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. This application is by the mother of the victim girl. 2. Mr.Sanghavi, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the accused was charged and tried for having committed the offences punishable under Section 354A(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is submitted that, at the relevant time, the age of the victim girl was about 15 years, the mother of the victim was the complainant and she is aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court and therefore appeal is filed. It is submitted that, while filing acquittal appeal, since it is the requirement to file an application seeking leave of this Court, this application is filed, the same is listed by the Registry and the same be allowed. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The point at issue before this Court is not, whether leave as prayed for should be granted or not. The point at issue is, whether, in the case like the present one, the complainant / victim is at all required to take leave of this Court, as contemplated under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or can prefer such an appeal as a matter of right. In other words the point at issue before this Court is, whether a person who is ‘victim’ within the meaning of Sec.2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, as a matter of right invoking proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or he is required first take leave of this Court as contemplated under Section 378 of the Code. 5. To consider the above point, the following provisions of law and amendments therein need to be kept in view. 5. To consider the above point, the following provisions of law and amendments therein need to be kept in view. 5.1 Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which has bearing on the point at issue, reads as under. “378. Appeal in case of acquittal. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub- sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.] (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal. (3) No appeal under sub- section (1) or subsection (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) No application under sub- section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. (6) If in any case, the application under subsection (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under subsection (1) or under sub- section (2).” 5.2 Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as it stands now reads as under : “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 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.” 5.3 It is noted that, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code was inserted vide Amendment Act (5 of 2009) w.e.f. 31.12.2009. 5.4 Section 2 (wa), as inserted in the Cr.P.C., vide the very same Amendment Act (5 of 2009) reads as under. “2(wa). ‘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 and the expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal heir.” 5.5 It also needs to be kept in view that recognizing 'victim' vide 'Section 2 (wa)' and conferring right of appeal to the said victim vide insertion of proviso to Section 372 in the Cr.P.C. - both are included vide Amendment Act (5 of 2009) in the Code and they need to be read conjointly and harmoniously. 6. Conjoint consideration of the above provisions of law and amendments therein takes this Court to an inescapable conclusion that a person who is ‘victim’ within the meaning of Sec.2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, as a matter of right conferred by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is not required take leave of this Court as contemplated under Section 378 of the Code. 7. It is noted that what is held above is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali versus State of Karnataka reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (1) GLH (FB) 265. 8. 8. In view of above it is held that, a person who is ‘victim’ within the meaning of Sec.2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, as a matter of right conferred by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is not required to take leave of this Court as contemplated under Section 378 of the Code. 9. This application is disposed of in above terms. 10. Registry shall not insist for filing of application seeking leave, in such cases.