Summary
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a delayed appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC because Section 378 does not expressly exclude it. The Court distinguished decisions under the 1908 Act and special statutes that expressly barred extension of time.
Issues
- Whether delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Permits admission of a late appeal on sufficient cause; it applies to an appeal under Section 378 CrPC because the Code does not expressly exclude it. (¶¶ 7, 11)
- Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963Makes Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5, applicable to periods prescribed by special or local law unless expressly excluded. (¶¶ 7, 11)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The limitation provisions for appeals against acquittal contain no express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (¶¶ 2, 3, 11)
Held
- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5, to periods fixed by special or local laws unless those provisions are expressly excluded. The rule differs from Section 29(2) of the 1908 Act, which excluded Section 5. (¶ 7)
- Section 5 may be used to seek condonation of delay in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. Section 378 does not expressly exclude Section 5; a prescribed limitation period alone does not displace it. (¶¶ 7, 11)
- The decisions concerning election petitions and pre-emption applications did not govern this appeal because those special statutes expressly or by their scheme excluded condonation of delay. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the interim order was vacated and the Registry was directed to inform the Delhi High Court so the appeal there could proceed.