Bombay High Court
Naresh Prasad S/O Devsharan Singh vs Harendra S/O Ramawadh Singh And 4 Others on 20 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:826
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2023
Naresh Prasad s/o. Devsharan Singh,
Aged 70 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o. New Majari Colliery,
Taluka Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur. ..... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1) Harendra S/o. Ramawadh Singh,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation: Transporter.
2) Dharamveer S/o. Ramawadh Singh,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation: Transporter.
3) Ramawadh S/o. Ganga Singh,
Aged about 72 years, Occupation : Retired,
4) Birendra S/o. Baban Singh,
Aged about 52 years, Occupation : Service,
Nos.1 to 4 R/o. New Housing Colony,
New Housing Quarters, New Majari Colliery,
Post: Shivji Nagar, Taluka Bhadrawadi,
District Chandrapur.
5) State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Warora, Taluka Warora,
District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. S. N. Singh, Counsel and Mr. A. M. Chandekar, Counsel
for the applicant.
Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, APP for respondent No.5/State.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 20.01.2025
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
(2)
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this revision application, the applicant
has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Warora dated 05.09.2023 allowing the objection
raised by the Superintendent and appeal is dismissed for want of
limitation.
4. The facts giving rise to the present revision
application shows that Harendra Ramawadh Singh and other
accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections
324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After recording the relevant evidence, the learned trial Court
acquitted the said accused persons. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied the same, the victim i.e. present applicant Naresh
Prasad s/o Devsharan Singh preferred an appeal against the
acquittal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.PC.'). On submission of the appeal, the Superintendent
of the establishment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora
raised an objection that appeal is not within limitation and the
application for condonation of delay is not filed along with the
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
appeal memo. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by passing
order held that objection of the Superintendent is sustained and
for want of limitation the appeal is dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in
fact, no limitation period is prescribed for preferring the appeal
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and invited my attention towards
the provision Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that the
proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. only states that within
reasonable period that appeal should be filed. He further
submitted that as the limitation period is not provided under
Articles 114 or 115 of the Limitation Act that victim must to
prefer an appeal within a reasonable period. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on Amit s/o. Bhagirath Mishra
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2016 ALL
MR (Cri.) 5181 wherein this Court has considered the aspect
that no limitation period is prescribed but the appeal should be
filed within a reasonable period. He submitted that without
being an application for condonation of delay it is observed by
the Additional Session Judge that there was no sufficient and
reasonable cause for condonation of delay. In fact, the
opportunity is not granted to the present applicant to prefer an
application for condonation of delay.
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
6. Learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the
respondents strongly opposed the application and submitted that
the appeal should be filed within the limitation period though a
specific limitation period is not provided. He submitted that the
guidelines are issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi Vs. Jaiprakash
Tulshiram Gupta and Anr. reported in 2020 ALL MR (Cri)
2926 and by the said guidelines it is mentioned that the copy of
the order of acquittal is to be forwarded to the District
Magistrate so that the victim shall get knowledge about the
acquittal. He submitted that as there was no reasonable cause
for preferring the appeal at a belated stage, the appeal is rightly
dismissed.
7. After hearing both the side and on perusal of the
entire record it reveals that the appeal is filed by the applicant
against the acquittal. The impugned Judgment of acquittal was
passed on 07.01.2019, whereas the appeal was preferred on
17.02.2021. The objection was raised by the Superintendent
that appeal is not within limitation and on that while passing the
order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there is
no sufficient and reasonable cause for filing an appeal at a
belated stage. In view of the observation of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Amit s/o. Bhagirath Mishra (supra)
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
on which the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on
and states by referring its earlier Judgment that there is no
limitation provided for filing of such an appeal against acquittal
by a victim; but it firmly held that such appeal should be filed
within a reasonable period of time. Now, as a matter fact, the
question whether the limitation for filing an appeal by a victim
from order of acquittal did not fall for consideration before the
Division Bench, nor any question to that effect was framed in the
case of Balasaheb. According to us, therefore, the Division Bench
Judgment in the case of Balasaheb is not an authority for the
proposition that no limitation is provided for filing of an appeal
against an order of acquittal and that such appeal should be filed
within a reasonable period. The aspect of limitation for filing of
an appeal against acquittal is governed by Article 114 of the
Limitation Act. It is interesting to note that the said question fell
for consideration before the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the case of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Vs. M/s. Atma
Tube Products Ltd. & others [decided on 18 th March, 2013]
and by referring the relevant paras of the said Full Bench
Judgment it is held that it is clear from the above discussion,
there is no provision of limitation for filing of an appeal by the
victim under proviso to Section 372 of the Code and period of
limitation for the purpose of filing appeal by victim shall be as
under i.e. appeal lies to the High Court 90 days where the appeal
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
lies to the another Court 60 days. It is further held that the
appeal by the victim is to be filed within a reasonable period.
The similar ratio has laid down by this Court by the Division
Bench in Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi (supra)
8. In view of the decision of both the Judgments it
would be appropriate in the present case to give a liberty to the
present applicant to file an application for condonation of delay
and the necessary opportunity is to be granted to the other side
to oppose the application and on its own merits by ascertaining
whether there was a reasonable cause or not. The said
application for condonation of delay is to be decided by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora,. In view of that I
proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Warora dismissing the appeal and by sustaining
the objection of Superintendent is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(ii) The liberty is granted to the applicant to file an
appropriate application for condonation of delay.
(iii) The Additional Sessions Judge shall give an
opportunity to the other side to raise an objection
appropriately and after ascertaining whether the applicant
succeeded in showing there was reasonable cause or not
to prefer an appeal at a belated stage.
(iv) The application is to be decided on its own merits.
41.revn.257.2023.judgment.odt
9. The revision application is disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2025 19:22:42
