State of U.P. v. Suresh Pratap and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court condoned a 311-day delay in filing an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. On merits, the Court rejected the State's application, holding the trial court's acquittal was not perverse, illegal, or devoid of merits, and dismissed the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Application for leave to appeal rejected; appeal memorandum dismissed.
What the court decided
Chief Justice’s Court Additional Cause List Serial No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Lucknow)
*******
U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 179 of 2007
State of U.P. ...Applicant Through: Ms. Smiti Sahay, Additional Government Advocate vs. Suresh Pratap and others ...Opposite party
CORAM: HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE
ORDER
HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.
Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 7946 of 2007
The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay of 311 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal to the State against the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
Whether the trial court's finding of acquittal was perverse, erroneous, or illegal requiring interference.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State of U.P.
- respondent
Suresh Pratap
Coram
Rajesh Bindal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- GOVA/1000179/2007
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court