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

2010 Supreme(Pat) 1755

DHARNIDHAR JHA, MRIDULA MISHRA
Raghunath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

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


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