Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE, JJ.
Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Directorate Of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 2052 of 2017)
Decided on : 20-02-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 378(5) and 482 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Customs Act, 1962 – Section 135(1)(b) – Appeal against acquittal – Bar of limitation – Where a special law prescribes a period of limitation, Section 5 of Limitation Act would have no application, subject only to language used in special statute – Section 5 is applicable even in special laws when a period of limitation is prescribed, unless it is expressly excluded by such special law – There is no such exclusionary provision under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., or at any other place in the Code – Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Present appellant was one of four accused in a case instituted, inter-alia under Section 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. He faced trial where he was ultimately acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi vide order dated 06.10.2012. An application was then moved by the present appellant before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of said order on grounds that Section 5 of Limitation Act would not apply in case of an appeal against acquittal. Delhi High Court nonetheless dismissed application for recall filed by appellant, although no reasons were assigned while dismissing application under Section 482.
Findings of Court:
In present case, there is no such exclusionary provision under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., or at any other place in the Code. Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can therefore be availed in an appeal against acquittal. There is no force in contentions raised by appellants as regards non-application of Section 5 of Limitation Act in present case and appeal is dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of CrPC was belated by 72 days and condonation of delay was allowed by High Court (!) . - Section 378 of CrPC does not contain an exclusionary provision regarding application of Section 5 of Limitation Act (!) . - Under Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 is applicable even to special laws when a period of limitation is prescribed, unless expressly excluded (!) . - No bar under Section 5 applies if the special law does not expressly exclude its application; mere mandatory language prescribing a period is not sufficient to displace Section 5 (!) (!) . - Appeal against acquittal is maintainable and the High Court has power to entertain it (!) . - Appeal dismissed by High Court is set aside and interim order vacated (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present appellant was one of the four accused in a case instituted, inter-alia under Section 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. He faced trial (S.C. No. 33 of 2009) where he was ultimately acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi vide order dated 06.10.2012.
2. Against the order of acquittal, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an appeal before the High Court on 27.06.2013. That appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of CrPC was accompanied by a delay condonation application, since the appeal was belated by 72 days. The delay condonation application was allowed by the Delhi High Court on 18.05.2016.
3. An application was then moved by the present appellant before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC for recalling of the said order on grounds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply in case of an appeal against acquittal since the period of filing an appeal against acquittal, has been prescribed under Section 378(5) of CrPC itself, where there is no provision for condonation of delay. By order dated 20.01.2017 the Delhi High Court nonetheless dismissed the application for recall filed by the appellant, although no reasons were assigned while dismissing the application under Section 482.
4. This order has been challenged before us on the grounds that the High Court has committed a patent error in allowing the belated appeal against acquittal filed by public servant as the High Court has no powers to condone the delay since the provisions of the Limitation Act would not be applicable as Section 378 is a self-contained Code as far as limitation is concerned since there is no period prescribed in the Limitation Act for filing a appeal against acquittal.
5. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh (1964) 4 SCR 982. The facts of Kaushalya Rani are as follows: Kaushalya Rani had filed a case against one Gopal Singh under Section 493 IPC and alternatively under Section 496 IPC, alleging that Gopal Singh had deceitfully made her believe that he is her lawfully married husband and thus had sexual intercourse with her. Gopal Singh faced a trial in which he was acquitted by the Trial Court and an appeal against acquittal was filed by Kaushalya Rani under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereafter referred to as the “old CrPC”), under Section 417. The appeal was filed beyond the period of 60 days as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 417, i.e., the then prevailing Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. This matter was thus taken by Kaushalya Rani before this Court. The case was filed before this Court on a certificate of fitness granted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the question for determination before this Court was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under sub-section 3 of Section 417 of the old CrPC.
6. This Court on its interpretation of sub-section 4 of Section 417[1[Section 417 of the old CrPC is as follows:
417 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of a acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (XXXV of 1946), the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from the order of acquittal.
(3) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case institu
Appeal against acquittal – Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the language of Section 378(5) of the CrPC did not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and thus, the court....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Person Aggrieved May File Appeal - Under S.74 of the 2013 Act, it has been provided that a person aggrieved, may file appeal in the High Court within 60 days of passing of an award.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
