K RANGANAYAKAMMA Vs. P SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE K.Ranganayakamma filed a private complaint against four persons alleging that A-4 dragged her by hair, that A-2 fisted her on the back, that as she extricated herself from them and was trying to get into her house A-1 beat her with a chappal on her left cheek and that A-3 handed over a stick to A-l for the purpose of beating her. The learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mangalagiri, took the case on his file under sections 323, 352, 355 and 109, Indian Penal Code. After full trial, he convicted A-l under sections 355 and 323, Indian Penal Code, believing the case of the prosecution about beating and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs 50 and Rs, 30 respectively and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. He acquitted A-2, A-3 and A-4. A-l filed Crl. Appeal No. 427 of 1964 before the learned Sessions Judge Guntur. The latter acquitted A-l altogether. The complainant filed Crl. R. P. No 25 of 1964 on 28th October, 1964 before the learned Sessions Judge for making a reference to this Court against the judgment of the trial: Court so far as it related to the acquittal of A-2, A-3 and A-4. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing, ultimately dismissed the revision petition on 5th August. 1965 on merits. Thereupon, the compleinant filed this petition Crl, M. P. No 2036 of 1965 under section 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, for Special Leave to appeal against the acquittal of A-2, A-3 and A-4 by the learned Magistrate. The complainant filed Crl M. P. No. 2035 of 1965 for excusing the delay of 309 days in filing the Special Leave, Petition Crl. M P. No. 2036 of 1965. The case of the complainant is that she was given wrong legal advice and therefore, she filed Crl. R. P. No, 25 of 1964 on 28th October, 1964, before the learned Sessions Judge and that, only subsequently, she came to know from an Advocate in Hyderabad that an appeal against the acquittal under section 417 (3), Criminal Procedure Code was proper legal remedy and that the period from 23th October. 1964 to 5th August. 1965 should be excluded under section 5 of the Limitation Act, If the delay is excused, the appeal would be in time. Sri I. Koti Reddy, the learned Advocate for the respondents, contested Crl. M. P. No. 2035 of 1965. Sri R. Venugopal Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that under section 29 of the new Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963), the provisions under section 5 of the old Act are available to the complainant. But, the learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that section 29 of the new Act does not apply to the present case, Section 29 of the Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963) runs as follows ;