( 1 ) CRLA. MP (SR ). NO. 16440 of 2004 in Crl. A (SR ). No. 16438 of 2004 is preferred praying for leave to file an appeal as against an acquittal, along with an application in Crl. MP. No. 6156 of 2004 seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 2 ) LIKEWISE, Crl. M. P. No. 4642 of 2004 in Crl. A (SR ). No. 18604 of 2003 is filed by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. Hyderabad, with an application seeking condonation of delay of 213 days in presenting the appeal. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as hereunder:378. Appeal in case of acquittal: (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (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 acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in Revision]. (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 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) to the High Court from the order of acquittal. (3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or Sub-Section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-section (3) is a new provision. (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertain by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. (6) If, any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2 ).

( 3 ) IN the light of sub-section (1) of Section 378 and also Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter in short referred as Code for the purpose of convenience) especially in the light of the language employed in Sub-Section (5) of Section 378 of the Code, which reads as hereunder: shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. This Court felt the necessity of hearing the learned Counsel on record and also the learned Advocate General and the President of High Court Advocates Association and in view of the importance of the question, general importance of the question involved relating to the applicability or otherwise of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to such cases, a request also was made to the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in this regard. All the Counsel were heard at length.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate General placed reliance on short note decision in The Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality v. K. Koti Reddy (1975 (1) AW 28) decided on 31-03-1975 in Sr. Nos. 2201 and 2202 of 1975. The learned Advocate General also placed reliance on a decision reported in The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Gannavaram (1976 (2) A. P. L. J. 171) in Crl. A. S. R. No. 22513 of 1975. Reliance also was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document