ASST COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER GANNAVARAM Vs. STAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The dispute that is raged in these S.Rs. and requires to be resolved is: What is the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against an order of acquittal by the Public Prosecutor in a case where the complaint is a public Servant Is it 'six months' prescribed by S. 378 (5) Cr.P.C. 1973 or '90 days- fixed by Article 114 (a) of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 1963.

(2.) These S.Rs. are filed by the Public Prosecutor under S.378(4) CrP.C. 1973 against the orders of acquittals for grant of special leave. On an examination and scrutiny of the S.Rs. the Office found that they were all presented beyond a period of 90 days and, therefore, took an objection as to how the S.Rs. were in time. The Office further pointed out that in view of the decision of this Court in S.Rs.Nos. 2201 and 2202 of 1975 dated 18-7-1975, the appeals presented were not within time. The Public Prosecutor answering the objections submitted that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal the against acqu ittal in a case where the complainant is a public servant whether the appeal is preferred by the Public Prosecutor or a private counsel is only the period of six months prescribed under section 378 (5) Cr P.C. 1973, and that just because the appeal is filed through an official agency like the Public Prosecutor, the benefit of the period of limi tation of six months under section 378 (5) Cr.P.C. 1973 cannot be denied to the complainnat. He further submitted that in S.R.Nos. 2201 and 2202 of 1975 it was not decided that the Public Prosecutor cannot claim the benefit of 'six months' limitation provided under section 378 (5) Cr.P.C. 1973 Consequently, the S.Rs. are posted before the Court for Orders.

(3.) Before embarking on a consideration of the issue involved, it would be necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 378 Cr.P.C. 1973 reads as follows: "378. Appeal in case of acquittal.