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

1957 Supreme(AP) 228

Parchuri Adeseshamma – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


BAD REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN these two petitions the question is raised as to whether the provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act apply to sub-section (4) of section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If they do, the High Court has the power, notwithstanding the peremptory provisions of the said sub-section, to condone the delay in filing an application for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal.

( 2 ) THIS question was considered by Umamaheswaram, J. , in Putchelapalle Venkatasubbareddi v. Duvvuru Papireddy1, and we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (XXVI of 1955) for the first time in our Penal system, the Legislature conferred on a private complainant a right of appeal from an order of acquittal. Apparently being conscious of the danger inherent in giving such a right to a private party, the Legislature imposed a twofold restriction on the exercise of that right. By reason of sub-section (3) of section 417, a complainant could prefer an appeal only where the High court granted special leave to appeal, while sub-section (4) prescribed a shorter period of limi




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