Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY, JJ
Najra Pravin @ Nazra Praveen – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. victim's right to appeal following acquittal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. interpretation of victim's appeal rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 15 , 18) |
| 3. divergent judicial views on appeal limitation. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 25) |
| 4. legislative intent behind appeal rights. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. reference to larger bench for clarity. (Para 54) |
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
The instant criminal appeal has been placed before this Court pointing out the Stamp Report defect no. 7. The Office Notes dated 16.10.2015 reads as under:-
“Stamp Report defect no. 7 i.e. Limitation expires on 18.03.2025 and petition filed on 12.05.2025, hence limitation petition wanting for 55 days still stands vide further S.R. dated 04.07.2025 kept at Flag ‘A’.
Submitted U/H “For Orders (On Office Notes)” before Hon’ble D.B. Criminal.”
2. This appeal has been preferred by the informant/victim challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2024 by which the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Saharsa has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), Act in
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
