Surendra Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

In this petition the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 15.04.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2023 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, pending in that learned court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the case by the learned trial court in connection with Namkum P.S.Case No.50 of 2011 (G.R. Case No.1140 of 2011. He submits that thereafter the respondent no.2 has moved before this Court in Acquittal Appeal (SJ) No.28 of 2022 which was dismissed on 20.09.2022 with liberty to work out the remedy before the appropriate forum. He submits that thereafter Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2023 was filed after six months and the same was admitted by the learned court on 15.04.2023 without condoning the delay. He submits that in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another v. D. Narsingh Rao and Others with Analogous case reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695, State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Chhedilal Yadav and Others v. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others and S.A. No.180 of 2002. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that even if the limitation is not prescribed in the statute within reasonable time one can prefer the appeal. He submits that learned court has erred in passing the said order.

Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no provision of limitation so far victim is concerned under section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

The State’s argument is also being accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that without condoning the delay which was pointed out by the office the learned court has been pleased to admit the said appeal.

The Court has looked into the order dated 15.04.2023 and finds that the learned court has observed that the defect pointed out regarding limitation is ignored at present meaning thereby the limitation point has been kept open by the learned court. As such, the point raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition can be well agitated by him in the pending appeal before the learned court and he is put at liberty to take all the grounds in the appeal.

With above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.