DHARNIDHAR JHA, MRIDULA MISHRA
Raghunath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This matter has been listed in view of the office notes, raising objection regarding limitation in filing appeal by the informant under proviso of the Section 372 Cr.P.C.
3. Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being enforced.
4. This provision has been amended vide Amendment Act, 2008 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The amended provision provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court, acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection, which has been raised by the office on the point of limitation has no application for the reason that under the Limitation Act, as yet, no period of limitation has been provided, as only limitation which is provided under Article 114 of the Limitation Act relat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.