ABDUL ALI ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. JANNAT
LAWS(ALL)-1957-1-29
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 11,1957

ABDUL ALI ABDUL RAHMAN Appellant
VERSUS
MST.JANNAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application for permission to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. The order of acquittal is dated 22-8-1956. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., the period of limitation for filing an application for special leave is sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. So the present application for leave is barred by time.
(2.) Mr. Sadiq Ali appearing for the complainant-applicant has urged that the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., are unconstitutional inasmuch as they violate the principle of Article 14 which enunciates the principle of equality before law. ''The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.'' It has been pointed out that, Section 417, Cr. P. C., makes different provisions for appeals against acquittals according as whether the appellant is the State Government or a private complainant. Sub-section (1) of Section 417 provides for appeals by the Stats Government against orders of acquittal. Under Article 157 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for such appeals is six months from the date of the order of acquittal. On the other hand under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., the period of limitation for an application for special leave is only sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. Mr. Sadiq Ali, therefore, contended that these provisions involve unconstitutional discrimination as against private complainants. The various sub-sections of Section 417, Cr. P. C. clearly make different provisions for appeals by the State Government and appeals by a private complainant. The question is whether such difference violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Courts have always recognised that, in spite of Article 14 of the Constitution, reasonable classification is permissible. We have, therefore, to consider whether the classification is permissible. We have, therefore, to consider whether the classification introduced by Section 417, Cr. P. C. is reasonable.
(3.) Formerly, appeals by private complainants against orders of acquittal were not permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure at all. The provision for such appeals by private complainants is new. Formerly, only the State Government could file an appeal against an order of acquittal. This position remained for several years after the commencement of the Constitution. I am not aware of any decision, holding that, the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 417, Cr. P. C. was unconstitutional on the ground that the section did not permit private complainants to file appeals against orders of acquittal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.