9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (2) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-4. (2) A-1 filed Crl. Appeal No. 427/64 before the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. The latter acquitted A-1 together. The complainant filed Crl. R.P.No. 25 of 1964 on 28-10-1964 before the learned Sessions Judge for making a reference to this Court against the judgment of the trial Court so far as it related to the acquittal of A-2, A-3 and A-4. (3) The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing, ultimately dismissed the revision petition on 5-8-1965 on merits. Thereupon, the complainant filed this petition, 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 by the learned Magistrate. (4) The complainant filed Crl. M.P. No. 2035 of 1965 for excusing the delay of 309 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, Crl. M.P. No. 2036 of 1965. The case of the complainant is that she was given wrong legal advice and, therefore, she filed Cr. R.P. No. 25 of 1964 on 28-10-1964 before the learned Sessions Judge and that, only subsequently, she came to know from an Advocate in Hyderabad that an appeal against the acquittal under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C. was proper legal remedy and that the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elappan,: AIR1965Ker31 , a question arose as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under sub-section (3) to Section 417(3) Cr. P.C. the learned Judge (Govinda Menon, J.) held that Section 5 applied to applications under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C. Sri Koti Reddy points out that the contention, which he has now raised before me, was not raised in that case and that the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was conceded and not decided after contest as seen from the following observations:- Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that, in view of the amendment, S. would now apply to applications under Section 417(3). The learned Judge also observed thus:- (at p. 32) Further, the extension of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be considered to be a new enactment prescribing a new period of limitation .. .. Alterations in procedure, therefore, are always held to be retrospective unless a good reason to the contrary is forthcoming. The real test appears to me to be whether the new rule is essentially an alt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to this special law. The result would be that although an appeal may be barred by limitation, it would not be liable to be dismissed under section 3. If possible, we must try and avoid such a starting result and we are sure that the Legislature did not intend that such a result should come about by the language used by it. Therefore, in our opinion, it is clear that we have before us a special law which does prescribe a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the first schedule to the Limitation Act. This view was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh,: [1964]4SCR982 . In paragraph 8 of that judgment, it is observed as follows:- (at page 263) ...... Hence, it may be said that there is no limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for an appeal against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private prosecutor. Thus, there is a difference between the Limitation Act and the rule laid down in Section 417(4) of the Code in respect of limitation affecting such an application.... (12) The position is as follows. Section 417(4) Cr. P.C. prescribes a specific period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation against A-2 and A-4 may well be dismissed as trivial under Section 95 I.P.C. In the result, I find that the prosecution have failed to prove the offence under Section 352, I.P.C. against A-2 and A-4 and acquit them under Section 258(1), Cr. P.C. ....... In this case, there was absolutely no provocation for A-3. Being a pregnant woman she was probably just a passive witness. .. Despite the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, I am doubtful about her instigation in the manner spoken by P.Ws. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment held as follows:- So far as A-2 and A-4 are concerned, the lower Court is not specific as to the reasons for the acquittal. One reason seems to be that it is too trivial to take cognizance of the offence and applying Section 95, I.P.C. acquitted them. ... Since the Medical evidence does not support P.W. 1's evidence, on that ground A-2 and A-4 are entitled to be acquitted. What the lower Court seems to think is that even otherwise the offence is trivial and applied Section 95, I.P.C. I do not think there is any illegality, impropriety or anything wrong in the appreciation of the evidence by the lower Court. I do not find any gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
