Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 636 (JHR)

Teharat Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2008-06-24

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner who was complainant filed Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2007 before this Court against the judgment dated 17.4.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Hazaribagh, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and affirmed the conviction under Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the trial Court. The petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by that part of the order of the appellate Court whereby accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act accordingly, the complainant filed Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2007 for grant of leave to file an appeal against the acquittal beyond the period of limitation. Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 on the points of limitation matter and by order dated 19.9.2007, the petitioner was directed to take steps for service of notice by registered post as well as under ordinary process within one week, falling which this application was to be rejected without further reference to a Bench. 3. Since the said peremptory order dated 19.9.2007 was not complied with, and therefore the Cr M.P. No. 1144 of 2007 stood rejected by virtue of said order. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for restoration of Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2007, which was registered as Cr M.P. No. 404 of 2007 i.e. present petition. 4. Office reported that the present application for restoration is barred by limitation since the limitation expired on 26.10.2007 whereas this application was filed on 19.3.2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 778 of 2008 for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application beyond time. The said application for condoning the delay is for consideration today before this Court. The explanation of delay of 130 days in filing the restoration application has been explained by the petitioner stating that the petitioner received the memo of rejection/dismissal on 28.2.2008 and he has filed the application for restoration on 19.3.2008 and therefore it was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. 5. The period of limitation has to be counted from the date of dismissal le. from 26.9.2007. 5. The period of limitation has to be counted from the date of dismissal le. from 26.9.2007. The peremptory order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 19.9.2007 therefore it was well within the knowledge that the step for service of notices has to be taken within one week from the date of peremptory order, but since he did not comply the said order and as such the application for leave was rejected on 26.9.2007. 6. We are not at all satisfied with the explanation of delay submitted on behalf of the petitioner in filing the restoration application beyond the period of limitation. 7. Accordingly, the limitation petition for condoning the delay i.e. I.A. No. 778 of 2008 is rejected. Consequently, the restoration application i.e. Cr. M.P. No. 404 of 2008 is dismissed, as time barred. Petition dismissed.