9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal filed within limitation period under s. 417(3) of Cr. P.C. 2. Interpretation of s. 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. Special rule of limitation under s. 417(4) of Cr. P.C. 4. Interference with the order of acquittal by the High Court. 5. Right of private defence of property. 6. Extension of benefit under s. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Analysis: The judgment involves the appeal filed within the limitation period under s. 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant contended that the application was within time as two days were necessary for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Magistrate. The key issue was whether s. 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act applied to applications under s. 417(3). The Court held that the special rule of limitation mentioned in s. 417(4) was a special law governing appeals by private prosecutors, and s. 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. The interpretation of s. 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act was crucial in determining the limitation period for appeals or applications. The Court referred to the case law and held that the special rule of limitation under s. 417(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code was a special provision for a special subject, and thus, a special law within the meaning of the Limitation Act. The Court rejected the argument that the word "entertain" in s. 417(4) meant "to deal with or hear," emphasizing that the application was not time-barred. Regarding interference with the order of acquittal by the High Court, the appellant argued against the High Court's decision. The Court reviewed the evidence of the injured witness and an independent witness, concluding that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the eyewitnesses' evidence. The Court upheld the High Court's finding of fact. The issue of the right of private defence of property was raised by the appellant, claiming no offence was committed. The Court held that even if the accused had a right of private defence, he should have sought recourse to authorities instead of taking the law into his own hands. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision on this matter. Lastly, the extension of the benefit under s. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant was considered. Despite the opportunity provided, no sufficient proof was presented to establish that the appellant was under 21 years of age at the relevant time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to establish grounds for the extension of the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.
|
