ORDER :

IA NO.1/2013 & IA NO.1/2012

The learned counsel for the appellant has filed IA No.1/2012 u/s.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and IA No.1/2013 for Special Leave application under Section 378(5) of Cr.PC.

2. Though the matter has been heard on the above said IAs., a serious legal question has been raised with regard to application of the Limitation Act, so far as the appeals filed u/s.378(4) of Cr.PC. on the ground that Section 378(4) and (5) are the Special provisions provided for preferring the appeal and it is a self contended enactment which provides separate and independent limitation for preferring the appeal. Therefore, the provisions of Limitation Act, in general Sections 4 to 24 Cr.PC. and in particular Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are impliedly excluded from application. Therefore, this court has taken up the above said point to be thrashed out as to ascertain whether the Indian Limitation Act is applicable for the appeals filed u/s.378(4) of Cr.PC. in spite of the said provision provide itself a limitation for preferring the appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing in various criminal appeals assisting the court for disposal of this IA in this particular appeal.

4. We have heard Sri P. Surana, Sri Satish Bandari, Sri S.H. Prashanth, Sri Sunil Rao, Sri S.P. Kulkarni and Sri P.B. Abhijith, who have argued the case before this court for and against basing various rulings of Hon'ble Apex court and other High Courts.

5. Sri. P.Surana has strenuously contended that if the provision u/s.378 of Cr.PC. is in contrast to Section 372 of Cr.PC. is considered, the scheme of the appeals are different u/s.378 of Cr.PC.. Section 378(4) and (5) prescribe a Special Leave to be filed by a private complaint, who has filed a private complaint in which the accused has been acquitted and the complaint filed a Criminal Appeal u/s.378(4) Cr.PC. He further contends that the provision u/s.378(5) Cr.PC. itself presupposes that, it should be obtained within a specified period if it is filed by a public servant u/s.378(3) of Cr.PC. there is less impact because only ‘leave’ has to be obtained not a ‘Special Leave’. So far as such private complaints are concerned, the rigor is more and impact is more on the society. Therefore, the law has prescribed that he has to obtain a Special Leave within a particular period of time. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is very much clear that they want to put an end to the private litigations as far as possible and as early as possible. Therefore, when Section 378(5) of Cr.PC. prescribes a special period of limitation, it expressly and impliedly excludes the application of the Limitation Act. He further contended that the proceedings u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a quasi criminal in nature and preferring of an appeal is not a right but it is only a qualified right, subject to the discretion of the court to grant Special Leave. Acquittal is considered distinctly from conviction judgments. Therefore, after relying upon various decisions, which I am going to quote later, the learned counsel submitted that the application deserves to be rejected, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, to the applications filed under section 378(5) beyond the period prescribed under that section.

6. The various other counsels as noted above have argued in favour of the application of the Limitation Act to the appeals preferred u/s.378(4) and Special Leave is sought u/s.378(5) of Cr.PC. It is contended that in view of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act compared to old and new Act, new Act specifically says that there should be an express exclusion of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act by the special statute itself, if there is no specific exclusion, then Indian Limitation Act particularly Sections 4 to 24 are applicable to all the other enactments where though there is special provision is made specifyi