1966 (2) TMI 92 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of A-1 under Sections 355 and 323 I.P.C.
2. Acquittal of A-2, A-3, and A-4 by the Magistrate.
3. Dismissal of the revision petition by the Sessions Judge.
4. Application for special leave to appeal against the acquittal.
5. Delay in filing the special leave petition and its excusal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction of A-1 under Sections 355 and 323 I.P.C.:
The learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate convicted A-1 under Sections 355 and 323 I.P.C. based on the prosecution's evidence, which included eyewitness testimonies. A-1 was sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. 30 respectively, with default sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count.

2. Acquittal of A-2, A-3, and A-4 by the Magistrate:
The Magistrate acquitted A-2, A-3, and A-4, citing insufficient evidence and triviality of the acts under Section 95 I.P.C. The Magistrate noted that the alleged acts of A-2 and A-4 did not cause significant harm or pain, and A-3 was considered a passive witness due to her pregnancy.

3. Dismissal of the Revision Petition by the Sessions Judge:
The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant, agreeing with the Magistrate's assessment of the evidence and the application of Section 95 I.P.C. The Judge found no illegality or impropriety in the Magistrate's judgment.

4. Application for Special Leave to Appeal Against the Acquittal:
The complainant filed Cr. M.P. No. 2036 of 1965 under Section 417(3) Cr.P.C. for special leave to appeal against the acquittal of A-2, A-3, and A-4. The complainant argued that the Magistrate's reasoning for acquittal was flawed and that the acts of dragging by hair and fisting were not trivial.

5. Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition and Its Excusal Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The complainant also filed Cr. M.P. No. 2035 of 1965 to excuse the delay of 309 days in filing the special leave petition. The delay was attributed to wrong legal advice and the subsequent realization of the proper legal remedy. The court considered the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act under Section 29 of the new Limitation Act (Central Act 36 of 1963).

The court referred to previous judgments, including Health Inspector v. Kelappan and Anjanabai v. Yeshwantrao, to determine that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to applications under Section 417(3) Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the provisions of Section 5 were not expressly excluded by the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby excusing the delay.

Conclusion:
The court excused the delay in filing the special leave petition but ultimately refused to grant special leave. The court found that the Magistrate's reasoning for acquittal, although flawed, did not warrant interference due to the elapsed time and the parties' considerable worry and expense. The special leave was refused, and the petition was dismissed.