Application for leave to appeal under S. 378(3) CrPC was dismissed. The court rejected interference with the trial court's acquittal, noting two possible views existed on evidence and the petition was barred by 547 days of delay.
Application for leave to appeal rejected; leave to appeal as prayed for is refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
coufirf
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rfi > 3'^£A '"sfCR. M. P. N0 ^ ACOUirTAL APPEAL N6. APPELLANT: The State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT: Ganesh Ram, s^^-ci+-rat^ c^ S/o.- Sukhram: DeshmuKh, Aged abouF- 3-0 years R/o.- Panchshil Chowk Padurana, P.S. Padurana, Distt. - Chhindwada (M.P.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 131 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 (ITOF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973.
HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
(Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker)
Cr.M.P. 298/2010
APPLICANT
State of Chhattisgarh
VERSUS
RESPONDENT
Ganesh Ram
Shri Praveen Das Dy. GAfdrthe applicant/State.
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TOAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
ORDER
~^
(03.08.2010)
Heard on admission.
The present petition which is barred by 547 days is directed againsi the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 1198/2005 acquitting the respondent/accused ofthe charges under Sections 279, 304-A, 337! and338oflPC. !
4 By the impugned judgment the Court below has acquitted the respondent of the offence as mentioned above. Hence the present petition.
-2-
w*—^
::^^. '^'^:1
5 . Counsel for the applicanVState submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to hav^ convicted the respondent/accused for the Qffences mentioned above ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to therespondent, i( has fallen in a grave legal error. He submits that even if the witnesseg have not stated that the vehicle in question was being driven by the respondenVaccused rashly or negligently but as one person has died iri the accident and two have suffered serious injuries, the judgment ofthe Court below acquitting the respondenVaccused is not proper and liable td be set aside. 6. Heard counsel for the appiicant/state and perused the materia| available on record. I
i^ , Pritinker Diwaker Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court should interfere with the acquittal of the respondent despite prosecution witnesses not explicitly stating rash or negligent driving.
Whether the present application for leave to appeal is barred due to delay exceeding the statutory limit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Chhattisgarh
Ganesh Ram
Justice Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
