IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55 OF 2001 (Old No.17/1997) Manohal Lal Vohra ……… Appellant Versus Chhetra Pal Dang & others …Respondents Dated: November 9, 2009 Coram: HON’BLE B.C. KANDPAL, J. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. HON’BLE B.C. KANDPAL, J. (Oral) Case called out repeatedly, however none is present on behalf of the appellant. Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate is present on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3/accused and Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/ respondent No.4. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.4.1997 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.T. No.11/1993, State Vs. Kshetra Pal Dang & others, acquitting the respondents- accused of the charge levelled against them u/s 302 IPC r/w Section 201 IPC. The appeal has been filed with the delay of 4 days. Having considered the material available on record, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed accordingly. As the appeal has been preferred against the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the private party/ complainant, who is the father of the deceased, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 378(1) Cr.P.C., the present appeal is not maintainable. There is a specific provision u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. that against the order of acquittal, the special leave to appeal can be entertained by the High Court on the application made by the complainant in a complaint case. The present case is neither a complaint case nor the appeal against the acquittal of the respondents-accused has been preferred by the State Government. Therefore, to our view the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the special leave to appeal application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.11.2009 Rajeev Dang