Madra Ji Bandhe vs Gopchand
2023 Latest Caselaw 531 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        CRR No.255 of 2019
    Madra Ji Bandhe S/o Ji Bhagwan Das Bandhe, aged about 44
      years, R/o Village & Post Pisegaon, Police Station Pulgaon,
      Distt. Durg (CG)
                                                       ---- Applicant
                                                             (Victim)
                              Versus
   1. Gopchand S/o Agrahij Tandan, aged about 60 years, R/o
      Kasaridih, Ward No.42, Jai Stambh Chowk, Tahsil and distt.
      Durg (CG)
   2. Sukhchand Mirche S/o Banshilal Mirche, aged about 66 years,
      R/o Gram Hanod, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil and Distt. Durg
      (CG)
   3. Dr. Awadhram Pandey S/o Shriram Pandey, aged about 66
      years, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (CG)
   4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Pulgaon, Distt.
      Durg (CG)
                                                  ---- Respondents

For Applicant : Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent/State    :     Shri S.S. Rajput, PL


                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                            Order on Board
25.01.2023

01. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of CrPC has

been filed against the order dated 24.1.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.17/2019 by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Durg whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant

herein under Section 372 of CrPC against the judgment dated

28.6.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal

Case No.17731/2008 acquitting the respondents/accused of the

charges under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of IPC, has been dismissed for

being barred by limitation.

02. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned

order is per se bad in law and as such, liable to be set aside. Under the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim has a right to prefer appeal

under Section 372 of CrPC but there is no fixed time frame for filing

such appeal and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the

appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the

ground of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside and the matter be remitted to the appellate Court for deciding the

appeal on merits.

In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the

decision of this High Court in the matter of Banwarilal Sharma Vs.

State of CG and another reported in 2016 (3) CGLJ 520.

03. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the

impugned order.

04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

05. In the matter of Banwarilal Sharma (supra), the appeal filed by

the applicant under Section 372 of CrPC was also dismissed on the

ground of limitation. While deciding the criminal revision of the

applicant, this Court referred to the judgment dated 1 st October, 2013

passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Acquittal Appeal Nos.96/2012

and 121/2012 wherein it is held that the period of limitation

prescribed for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal as

provided under Article 114 and Article 115 of the Schedule to the

Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable in the matter of appeal that

may be preferred by a victim under proviso to Section 372 of the

CrPC against an order of acquittal. Nevertheless, the appeal is

required to be filed by the victim within a reasonable period to be

reckoned from the date the victim acquires knowledge of the

order of acquittal. What would be the reasonable period, should

depend upon the facts and circumstances of every case. Keeping

in view the above judgment, this Court disposed of the revision petition

by quashing the order dated 3.11.2015 and directed the appellate

Court to re-hear the matter afresh in light of the aforesaid case law and

the facts attracted in the matter and to dispose of the said factum of

delay without being influenced by the order dated 3.11.2015.

06. The case cited by learned counsel for the applicant is squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, without

commenting anything on merits of the case, the present revision is

disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.1.2019 of

the appellate Court and directing the appellate Court to re-hear the

matter afresh in view of the aforesaid case law on the issue of delay

and proceed further in accordance with law.

07. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court either

through their counsel or in person, on 22nd February, 2023.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan