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

1956 Supreme(AP) 132

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UMAMAHESWARAM
PUTCHALAPALLI VENKATA SUBBARCDDI - Appellant
Versus
DUVVURU PAPIREDDI - Respondent
Decided On : 04-11-56

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications for special leave under Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 5 - SECTION 417 (4) CR. P. C. - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT APPLIES TO APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER SECTION 417 (4) CR. P. C.

Fact of the Case:

The issue before the court was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of time for filing appeals and applications, applies to applications for special leave under Section 417 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.), which prescribes a 60-day limitation period for such applications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to applications for special leave under Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C. The court reasoned that Section 5 applies to all criminal appeals, including those filed under Section 417 (1) Cr. P. C., and that there is no reason to exclude applications for special leave under Section 417 (4) from the scope of Section 5.

Issues: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications for special leave under Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: * Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to all criminal appeals, including those filed under Section 417 (1) Cr. P. C. * The Criminal Procedure Code is not a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, which excludes certain special or local laws from the application of Section 5. * The terms of Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C. do not expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. * A beneficent construction of a rule of limitation should be adopted if alternative constructions are possible.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions for extension of time for filing applications for special leave under Section 417 (3) Cr. P. C.

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 leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of sixty days from the date of that order of acquittal. "it is contended by Sri Ramalinga Reddi and Sri Kondayya appearing for the respondents that the period prescribed under sub-section (4) cannot be extended under any circumstances, as, according to them, the words are mandatory in character. For the purpose of appreciating this contention, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Indian LIMITATION ACT, 1963. Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 enacts that any application or application for a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. The section applies to (i) appeals (ii) applications for review of judgments (iii) applications for leave to appeal and (iv) to any other applications to which the section may be made applicable. As already stated, section 5 has been held to be applicable to criminal appeals including appeals filed under Section 417 (1) Cr. P. C. The only question to be decided is, whether Section 5 applies also to an application for special leave to appeal under the amended Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C. The preamble of the Act makes it clear that the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 was passed to consolidate and amend the law relating to the limitation of suits, appeals and certain applications to court" if section 5 applies to criminal appeals, it would also apply in respect of applications for leave to appeal, unless the terms of Section 417 (4) Cr. P. C. clearly exclude the application of Section 5. Reference may next be made to the terms of Section 29 (2) of the Indian limitation ACT, 1963 which runs as follows :" 29 (2 ). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor, by the first schedule the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law (a) the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18 and Section 38 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. "in order that Section 29 might apply to the facts of this case, it is necessary to consider, whether Criminal Pro



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 Back to top