Acquittal interference needs compelling reasons, while criminal prosecution remains barred once mandatory limitation for cognizance expires.

Interference with an acquittal in leave to appeal proceedings is warranted only for very substantial and compelling reasons, such as a plainly wrong factual finding, misreading of material evidence, or grave illegality; where the trial court has taken a reasonable view, the acquittal should stand. The commentary also notes that criminal proceedings for offences punishable with up to six months' imprisonment are subject to a one-year limitation for cognizance, and that this statutory bar is mandatory. On the stated facts, the acquittal was not disturbed and the prosecution was treated as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court called for interference in leave to appeal proceedings under the limited appellate jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under the criminal procedure law.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court called for interference in leave to appeal proceedings under the limited appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is justified only where there are very substantial and compelling reasons, such as a palpably wrong factual conclusion, an erroneous view of law, grave miscarriage of justice, patent illegality in appreciation of evidence, or misreading of material evidence. Where the trial court has taken a reasonable view on the evidence, the appellate court must give due weight to that view and will not disturb the acquittal merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not warrant interference and the leave to appeal petitions failed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under the criminal procedure law.

Analysis: The alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of six months each, attracting the one-year limitation for taking cognizance. The prosecution was initiated after a substantial delay, and the statutory bar under the limitation provision was held to be mandatory. In such circumstances, the initiation of the proceedings was treated as non est in law.

Conclusion: The prosecution was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned acquittal was upheld and the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal can be interfered with only on very substantial and compelling reasons, and criminal proceedings for offences carrying a sentence within the limitation period cannot be sustained once cognizance is barred by the mandatory statutory limitation.

---