Atar Singh vs Asha Ram & Another
2014 Latest Caselaw 8923 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 22
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2001
 

 
Applicant :- Atar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Asha Ram & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aga
 

 
Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.

None appeared for respondent nos.1 and 2 even after list was revised. Service of notice is sufficient on respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Heard learned counsel for appellant on application moved under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act.

Reason for delay alleged by appellant is that appellant was waiting for State Appeal but on 24.2.2001 when he met Shri Surendra Kumar, Advocate for knowing to progress of Government Appeal. Then he came to know that appeal will be filed in High Court through appellant. Thereafter appellant immediately came Allahabad  and fled appeal before High Court on 3.5.2000.

Reason for delay assigned by appellant is not acceptable as there is no provision of State Appeal in complaint cases. There is a specific provision in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.  that if order of acquittal has been passed in complaint cases  appeal shall be entertained  by High Court. Present appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah in Special Session Trial No.5 of 1993 (Atar Singh Vs. Asharam and another). 

In view of above I am of  view that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

Application moved under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is rejected.

Appeal is not entertained due to bar of limitation.         

Order Date :- 20.11.2014

RU