Application for leave to appeal under CrPC against acquittal dismissed. Court held the petition was barred by a 40-day delay and no reversion of acquittal was permissible.
Leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC rejected; impugned judgment of acquittal stood upheld.
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.
K|^'^;^sS^^^^:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i:^S^^S^®^5ii^^^?;^E^^^^^i:^'^^^g^^^
,'v-ii-X'\
IN THE HB^B&E HBSH fiWCT OF eHHi T;i5^ftaa AT BIXASPCTt.
Sr.4a 3'si ^/io^ Cy^i
KEVU.QKSS APBELIiANT GOH?&AIHftKT
AnaataebaEya so'n o£ Swami Raghvendracharya, Restdent of VeidEateesh »ai>dtr Sadar Basar BUaspurP«S* clty Kotwali DJLstriet Bilaepur (C»S»).
VERSUS
RESPONDENT ACCUSED
Venkatesh Gadodiya son of Hattaaal Sadediya, aged aboat 44 years, Vt/o. Sadar Bazar Bllaspur, Tahsil and Dlstrict Bilaspur (C.G.).
CRIMINftL APPE&L V/S 378 0?^RIMINAL-^--PReGBDtJCRE OODE. AGAINST
THE OBBER /JUDGEMENT OF ACQOITTAL PASSED BY THE OOUKT BELOW
INSTXTUTBD UPON OOHPLAIHT GASE.
'/
Jt-ww^
H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR (Hon.Mr.JusticePritinker Diwaker)
Anantachar/a
VERSUS
Venkatesh Gadodiya
Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri Counsei for the appiicant. Shri M. L. Saket counse! for She accused/r
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 S4) OF THE GODE OF CRIK!!NAL PROCEDURE.
ORDE .2S1Si
The present petition which is barred by 40 days deiay is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Chief Judicia,) Magistrate, Biiaspur, in Criminai Compiaint Case No. 40^8/2003 dismissing the case as filed by applicanVcompiainant the learned Court beiow has ac-quitted the respondent under sections 420. and •TO6 of IPC.
^•SS!SSf-^,_ ^y^<4"^ ^k.'% ../ :ir ^l :'A^,^ •••. '^^,/-<*r"?y
•'e"'-. c .uc yis SCE!?* EhsFtr^rcs.t sy <srSsuyyyFs^rtFirt'Enn a' i" LEMU ^ fi^&liiy . . - HE<yUUUCUiiTsn' i' inn^rf • • -s^ EIEUU^4itri!ntn.ff>E^i'I ta?E )ll Eii,Ef ih%%iiCE2* »JS?tSHh'^&ff"; argued by the counsel for the respondent/accused that ths impugned judgme"tisstrictSyinaccordancewithiawandthereis'noinfirmityinthe same.
rD^a^er ludge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be allowed when the petition is barred by the 40-day time limit.
Whether the High Court can re-evaluate evidence against the acquitted accused despite the lower court taking a view favourable to the accused.
Anantacharya
Justice Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
