LALA RAM versus HARI RAM

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 17-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

898 
LALA RAM 
v. 
HARi RAM 
October 17, 1969 
[S. M. S1KRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 417(4)-/f prescribes a period 
of Limitation. 
Words and Phrases-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 417(4)-
"Entertain", meaning of. 
An application for leave to' appeal to the High Cou'rt under s. 417(3) 
Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal by a Magistrate 
dated August 31, 1965 was filed on November l, 1965. , It was claimed 
that two days were necessary for obtaining the certified copy of the order 
of the Magistrate. The application would be in time if these two days 
were deducted. 
The High Court accepted the appeal and convicted the 
appellant. 
In appeal to this C'ourt against his _conviction the appellant 
contended that the period of 60 days mentioned in s. 417(4) was not a 
p<riod of limitation within die meaning of s. 12 of the Limitation Act and 
that the sub.-section barred the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with 
the application if a period of 60 days had expired from the date of the 
order of acquitial. 
HELD: The application under s. 417(3) to 
the High Court was 
within time, 
Section 417(4) itself prescribes a petiod of limitation; it was open to 
the legislature to prescribe a period of limitation in the code itself. In the 
conte<I of s. 417 ( 4) the word "entertain" means "file or receive by the 
court and it has no reference to the actual hearing of the application for 
leave to appeal; otherwise the result would be that in many cases applica-
tions for leave to appeal would be barred because the applications have not 
been put up for hearing before the High Court within sixty days of the 
order of acquittal. [901 D-F] 
J(ausha(va Rani v. Gopal Singh, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 982, 987, Anja11abai v. 
Yeshwantrao Daplatrao Dudhe, I.LR. 
(1961) 
Born. 
135, 
137 and 
Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. 
Asstt. Commissioner Sales Tax. 
[1968] 1 S.C.R. 505, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cdminal Appeal No. 
191 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 14, I967 of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 720 of 1965. 
B. D. Sharma, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. 
Hari Ram, respondent, filed a complaint against 
Lala Ram, appellant, alleging that Lala Ram had attacked him 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
LALA RAM v. HARi RAM (Sikri. J.) 
899 
with a Kassi on June 10, 1964, at about 6 p.m. Poonaram, who 
was stinding there prevented the blow from falling on Hari Ram 
by receiving it on his hand. 
The respondent, however, made ~ 
second attack and inflicted an injury on the left shoulder of Han 
Ram. Hari Ram and Poonaram got themselves examined by the 
Civil Assistant Surgeon of the city and the injury report was sub-
mitled alongwith the complaint. 
The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Hari Ram filed 
an application under s. 417 ( 3) of the Crjminal P.rocedure Code 
for leave to appeal against the order of /the Magistrate. 
Leave 
was granted by the High Court, and thereupon Harl Ram filed the 
appeal. 
The High Court accepted the appeal and convicted the 
appellant, Lala Ram, under s. 324, I.P.C., and sentenced him to 
four months' rigorous imprisonment. 
The attention of the High Court was not drawn to the Proba-
tion of Offenders Act, 1958, during the hearing of the appeal but 
subsequent to the delivery of the judgment an application was 
filed under s. 561-A, Cr. P.C., read with ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the 
Probation of Offenders Act It was alleged in the application 
that the appellant was 20 years old and the High Court should 
have given him the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act. 
The High Court did not accede to this application. 
The appellant 
having obtained special leave from this Court, the appeal is now 
. before us. 
The main contention of law which arises before us is whether 
the appeal to the High Court was filed within limitation. 
The 
application for leave to appeal to the High Court under s. 417 (3) 
against the order of acquittal of the Magistrate, dated August 31, 
I 965, was filed on November 1, 1965. 
It was claimed by the 
applicant that two days were necessary for obtaining the certified 
copy of the order of the Magistrate and the applicant was entitled 
to deduct these two, days take;n for obtaining the certified copy of 
the order of the Magistrate. 
There i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.