DAULAT RAM Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications in criminal revision arise under tho following circumstances: The plaintiff in a suit in the Munsif's Court at Meerut applied to that Court under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Coda to prosecute the two defendants the learned Munsif rejected the application the plaintiff thereupon filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Meerut under Section 476(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the Munsif was passed on the 21 of May, 1924. The appeal was filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge on the 24 of July, 1924. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appeal was time-barred and declined to hear it. He says : "In a case of this nature I hold that limitation begins to run from the date of the order appealed against. There was no need to file a copy of the final order in this matter. I, therefore, hold that the appeal is time-barred." Art. 154 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal of this kind and under that article 30 days are allowed from the date of the sentence or order appealed from.

(2.) The application by the plaintiff under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was treated as a separate miscellaneous civil ease, and given a separate number and was quite distinct from the civil suit which has been decided. When the Court passed its order, according to the practice approved of by this Court, a formal order was drawn up on the printed form which is provided for such formal orders in miscellaneous cases, embodying the result of the judgment passed in the case.

(3.) The plaintiff before presenting his appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge applied for and obtained a copy of this formal order and filed it along with his memorandum of appeal.