Limitation for leave to appeal from acquittal includes certified-copy time; private defence rejected and probation denied.

Section 417(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code was treated as a special limitation rule for leave to appeal from acquittal, and the time needed to obtain a certified copy was excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act; the application was therefore within time. The High Court's reversal of acquittal was upheld because the injured witness and an independent witness were found reliable, and the plea of private defence of property failed since the accused could have sought lawful recourse instead of taking the law into his own hands. Probationary relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was denied for want of proof that the appellant was below twenty-one years of age.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was barred by limitation and whether the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy was to be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal on the evidence; and (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Issue (i): whether an application for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was barred by limitation and whether the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy was to be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The period of sixty days in Section 417(4) was treated as a special rule of limitation governing applications for special leave to appeal from acquittal. The word "entertain" in that provision was understood to mean file or receive by the Court, not merely hear on merits. On that basis, Section 12(2) was held applicable so that the time requisite for obtaining the copy could be deducted in computing limitation.

Conclusion: The application for special leave was within time.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal on the evidence.

Analysis: The evidence of the injured witness and the independent witness was accepted as reliable, and no sufficient ground was shown to disturb the High Court's appreciation of facts. The plea of private defence of property was also rejected because the accused had an opportunity to have recourse to lawful authorities and could not justify taking the law into his own hands.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the acquittal was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Analysis: Although the appellant sought probationary relief, no satisfactory proof was produced to show that he was below twenty-one years of age at the relevant time, which was necessary for the claimed benefit.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 417(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes a special period of limitation for leave to appeal from acquittal, and the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act in computing that period.

---