SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(AP) 76

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Asst. Commercial Tax Officer Gannavaram – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. The dispute that is raged in these S. Rs. and requires to be resolved is: What is the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against an order of acquittal by the Public Prosecutor in a case where the complaint is a public servant Is it six months prescribed by S. 378 (5) Cr. P. C. 1973 or 90 days- fixed by Article 114 (a) of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 1963.

( 2 ) THESE S. Rs. are filed by the public Prosecutor under S. 378 (4) Crp. C. 1973 against the orders of acquittals for grant of special leave. On an examination and scrutiny of the S. Rs. the Office found that they were all presented beyond a period of 90 days and, therefore, took an objection as to how the s. Rs. were in time. The Office further pointed out that in view of the decision of this Court in S. Rs. Nos. 2201 and 2202 of 1975 dated 18-7-1975, the appeals presented were not within time. The Public Prosecutor answering the objections submitted that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal the against acqu ittal in a case where the complainant is a public servant whether the appeal is preferred by the Public Prosecutor or a private counsel is only the period of six months









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top