IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

CRA No. 916 of 2020

(SHANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

Dated : 15-01-2026

Shri Jay Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Prashant Jain - G.A. for the respondent/State.

Shri Navneet Kishore Verma - Advocate for the respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.5192/2023, which is an application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal

against acquittal.

2. The appellant has filed the appeal and Office has calculated the

delay of 76 days in filing the appeal.

3. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of

acquittal dated 03.09.2019 whereby the respondents No.2 to 9 have been acquitted from the charges 294, 506-II, 148 324/149 and 323/149 (three counts) of IPC in ST No.528/2015 by Sessions Judge, Ujjain in a case arising

out of Crime No.65/2015 registered at P.S. Bherugarh, Ujjain.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on 23.02.2020 and the delay

has been counted treating the period of limitation as 60 days, but as per Limitation Act, 1963, there is no specific provision for filing the appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. as held in paras 15, 16 and 17 of order dated 07.03.2017 in M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. vs. Kutubuddin S/o Abdullah Bhai and State of M.P. through P.S. Madhav Nagar, Ujjain passed in CRR No.92/2014. For ready reference paras 15, 16

and 17 are reproduced below:-

[15] Point No. 4 Regarding Limitation Issue :-

No limitation of time has been provided by the legislature in exercising of such a right of appeal by the victim in terms of proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. where no period of limitation is expressly provided to prefer an appeal, the aggrieved person is expected to approach the appellate court within a reasonable period. The 'reasonableness' of the period within which an appeal may be preferred, however, is purely a question of fact and will have to be determined keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

[16] The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Amit S/o Bhagirath Mishra V/s. The State Of Maharashtra reported in 2016 Cr.L.J.1418 also held that, “In our humble opinion, and with respect to the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court providing for the limitation for filing of an appeal against acquittal does not fall within the realm of the judicial function. It is for the Legislature to provide for limitation under Article 114 when the occasion has arisen as a result of insertion of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. with effect from December 31, 2009. Till then, the settled principle that such appeals must be filed within a reasonable time should hold the field. Further, the appellate Court has always a power to consider the reason about the date of knowledge of the order appealable by the victim as appeal, sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. With respect, it would not be appropriate to hold that the limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge acquired by the victim without the same being projected as a reason to condone the delay.”

[17] So, in the light of above pronouncements, this court is of the view that, no limitation of time has been provided by the Legislature for exercise of such a right of appeal by the “victim” in terms of the said proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., hence, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court has to determine as to whether the appeal was entertainable, or not, on the ground of absence of bona fide explanation for delay by the appellant.

5. In this case, present appeal has been filed within a reasonable period, hence, I.A. No.5192/2024 is hereby allowed and the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

6. List the matter in the next week for arguments on admission.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE Vatan