SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(AP) 132

UMAMAHESWARAM
PUTCHALAPALLI VENKATA SUBBARCDDI – Appellant
Versus
DUVVURU PAPIREDDI – Respondent


UMAMAHESWARAM, J.

( 1 ) THESE are applications filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 for excusing the delay in filing applications for special leave under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Act XXVI of 1955, and they raise an important and interesting question of law. The period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 417 (1) Cr. P. C. is fixed under art. 157 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. To such appeals it js not disputed that Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 applies. Even in regard to other criminal appeals provided under articles 150, 150-A, 154 and 155 the provisions of section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 apply. The decision of the Madras High court in Janakiramayya v. Brahmayya and of the Punjab High Court in the State v. Datu Ram clearly hold that Sections applies to all criminal appeals.

( 2 ) THE main question that arises for decision in these petitions is, whether the terms of Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C. preclude the application of the provisions of Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. Subsection (4) of Section 417 Cr. P. C. is in the following terms :" No application under sub-section (3) for the grant of special



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top