In Re
v.
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
S. R. No. 24834 Of 1956 | 23-09-1956
( 1 ) THE point that arises for consideration here is whether the application for special leave from the order of acquittal for which a period of sixty days has been prescribed under Section 417 (4), Criminal P. C. , excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act if there is delay in filing such an application within the period of sixty days, The office has pointed out in its note that Section 29 (2) of the limitation Act would apply to the case and therefore Section 5 would not be available to the complainant when he is out of time. But Section 29 (2) comes into operation only when the special law prescribes a period different from the period prescribed by the first schedule to the Limitation Act. In this case of special leave against acquittal the schedule to the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period at all. Such being the case only where there is difference between the period prescribed by this schedule and the period prescribed by the special law would section 29 (2) be applicable. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no such difference between the period prescribed by the law of limitation and the criminal P. C. For the first time it appears that under Section 417 (4) a period of sixty days has been prescribed for filing an application for special leave against acquittal. Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the Criminal P. C. makes all laws applicable to the Criminal P. C. including the law of limitation and nothing could prevent the appellant from taking advantage of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
( 2 ) THE question then is whether the complainant has satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the special leave application. It transpires in this case that there was just a delay of one day after the reopening of the Court before which the application should have been filed. Ordinarily one days delay is always excused and In this case I am satisfied there is sufficient cause shown for the delay. So this delay will be excused.
( 3 ) POST the appeal for admission.
( 2 ) THE question then is whether the complainant has satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the special leave application. It transpires in this case that there was just a delay of one day after the reopening of the Court before which the application should have been filed. Ordinarily one days delay is always excused and In this case I am satisfied there is sufficient cause shown for the delay. So this delay will be excused.
( 3 ) POST the appeal for admission.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties A.S. SIVAKAMANINATHAN, Advocate.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BASHEER AHMED SAYEED
Eq Citation
1957 CRILJ 519
AIR 1957 MAD 300
LQ/MadHC/1956/307
HeadNote
Limitation Act, 1963 — Ss. 5 and 29(2) & (3) and Sch. I, List I — Special leave against acquittal — Application for — Limitation — Limitation Act not applicable — Limitation Act, 1963 Sch. I, List I, Entry 1 CrPC S. 417(4)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.