N.Balaganapathi v. Govindasamy
Case brief
What is this about?
of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.No.42098 of 2021
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Crl.O.P.No.22602 of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.No.42098 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant would submit that the accused had taken a stand that he has not received the notice at all. Thereafter, he has examined DW1 to state the fact that notice was served on him on 02.11.2018 whereas as per Ex.P5, the Track Consignment, notice was served on the accused only on 06.12.2018 and thereby the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. Basing reliance on Ex.P5, the trial court found that the complaint was filed within the time whereas the Appellate Court has erroneously held that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and allowed the appeal. Prima facie case has been made out. Leave is granted.
08.12.2021
Note:Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. shk/vri
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to file the present Criminal Appeal under Section 379 CrPC to challenge the order of limitation should be granted.
Coram
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court