LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAMDEEN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
RAMDEEN & OTHERS
March 4, 1977
139
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJJ
Code of .. Crilninal Procedure, 1973, s. 378(1) and (3)-}Vhether two
sep'!rate pellltons are 11cressary 1111der sub-section ( 1) and (3), or a co1n-
posl/e 111e111ora11dun1 of t p:1cal can contain prayer for leave to appall.
The State filed an application under s. 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, for
leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, of the charges under
s. 302 and 3021149 I.P.C., by the Trial Court. The application, although
n1ade under s. 378 (3) contained all the requisites for a
memorandum
of
a~peal. The High Court granted the appellant leave to the appeal, but dis-
rn1ssed the appeal filed thereafter, on the ground that it had not been hied
~ithin ninety days of the date. of judgment appealed from, and was therefore
lime-barred under Art. 114(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Allov.'ing the appeal by special leave the Court,
HELD ( 1) The High Court has not laid down any rules in the matter of
application for leave t6 appeal by the State. The matter ·will have to
be
decided in ternlS of s. 378(1) and (3) of thi Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. An appeal can be filed by the State within ninety days from the date
of the order of acquittal, and a prayer may be included in that appeal for
entertaining the appeal under sub-section (3) of section 378 Cr.P.C.
1'he
appeal may otherwise become time-barred if the High Court takes more than
ninety days for disposal of the application for leave, and refuses to exercise
its jurisdiction to condone the delay. The right conferred under the section
cannot be put in peril by an interpretation of section 378, Cr.P.C. which is
likely to affect adversely or even perhaps to destroy that right.
[141 C-HJ
(2) The fact that the appellrint's application mentioned section 378(3) is
not decisive of the true character of the application which to all intents anti
purposes \Vas a memorandum of appeal.
[142 C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal
Appeal
No.
343 of 1976.
A
B
c
D
E
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
F
27-1-1975 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.
Crl. Appeal No.
575/74)
S. M. Jain, !. Makwana and D. Shandari, for the appellant.
Doongar Singh and S. K. Gambhir, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
GoswAMI, J. The respondents were tried by the Sessions Judge,
Merta (Rajasthan) for offences under sections 302, 302/149 and some
other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Respondent Gopa-
ram was acquitted of all the charges.
The other respondents also
were acquitted of the charges under sections 302 and 3021149, IPC.
Respondent Sangram was convicted under section 304 Part II, IPC.
H
Respondent Dayalram was convicted under section 324 IPC.
Res-
pondents Budharam and Ramdeen were convicted under section 323
ll>C.
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{ 1977] 3 S.C.R.
. A
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, the State
B
of Rajasthan preferred an appeal against acquittal of the major charges
under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Sessions Judge delivered the judgment on March 30, 197 4
and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came into force from April
1, 197 4-
The appeal was, therefore, preferred under the new Code.
It appears that the State of Rajasthan preferred a petition for leave
to appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, on June 27,
1974, which
was within the period of
limitation prescribed under article 114 (b) of the Limitation
Act,
1963. Article 114(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for
a
period of limitation for appeal from an order of acquittal under sub-
C
section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 417 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter to be described as the Old Code).
The Limitation Act being an act of the year 1963, does not naturally
refer to section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Section 3 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is equivalent
to section 41 7 of the Old Code with an important difference in case
of appeal against acquittal by the State.
Under the Old Code there
D
was no provis\on for taking leave of the High Court by the State for
presentation of an appeal to the High Court against an original or
appellate order of acquittal.
There was,
however, provision Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.