The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time consumed in obtaining a certified copy of the judgment should be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal, as provided under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AAG-4 over I.A. No. 1669/2018 whereby and whereunder, a prayer has been made on behalf of appellant to condone delay as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and further, appeal be entertained which has been filed against order dated 17.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-10th -cum-Authorized Officer, Court No.II, Vigilance Patna in Special Case No. 03/2015 arising out of Vigilance PS Case No. 1/13/SVU, Patna under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

2. Before coming to the main issue, it looks necessary to incorporate the intermediary event to the extent as necessary for the disposal of present interlocutory matter. The order dated 17.01.2018 passed under Section 15 of Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (henceforth "Act") was to be challenged under Cr. Writ which has already been preferred and placed vide Token No. 41023/2018 but was not pursued as, in identical case, Criminal Writ petition was converted into an appeal. That being so, it has been brought under Miscellaneous Appeal No. 395/2018 at the behest of appellant and the same has come up before the Bench and considering the relevant provision, more particularly, Section 17 of the Act. Vide order dated 24.05.2018, it was directed to convert the Miscellaneous Appeal as Criminal Appeal, consequent thereupon, instant appeal has been registered. It is further evident from the judgment impugned that on the following day of judgment, that means to say on 18.01.2018, application was filed for issuance of certified copy which was complied with by the learned lower court on 05.04.2018, after lapse of 2 months 13 days without any cogent reason whereupon it was ready to be delivered on 06.04.2018 on which date, it was received by the appellant.

3. The present appeal relates with an order under Section 15 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act") on a petition filed by the State in pursuance of Section 13 of the Act. Order happens to be appeal able under Section 17 of the Act.

4. After going through the Act, it is evident that it is bifurcated in two parts, first part deals with prosecution whereunder the appeal is provided under Section 9 of the Act and the second part (Chapter-III) deals with confiscation. After parallel scrutiny of the provisions of Section-9 whereunder, though there happens to be time limit of 30 days for filing an appeal, the appellate court has been vested with the power to condone the delay, if any, on account of filing of an appeal beyond the period of 30 days while no such provision has been prescribed under Section 17 of the Act. Considering the aforesaid eventuality, the matter has been heard at length.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel of the appellant that though it happens to be Special Act having no scope left for applicability of Limitation Act, even then as provided under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the court is competent enough to entertain the issued and, condone the limitation for want of presence of non obstante clause. It has also been submitted that there happens to be no forbidding clause available under the Act encroaching upon applicability of Limitation Act and so, there would not be any kind of barrier in condoning the delay. In order to properly appreciate the issue in hand, learned counsel for the appellant referred Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act whereunder there happens to be specific bar in entertaining the objection relating to an award after the prescribed period whereas in the present Act, there happens to be no forbidding clause that appeal would not be entertained after specified period. Also relied upon (Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2011 (1) PLJR 325) and (M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58).

6. Learned AAG-4, raised objection over legality of the submission made on behalf of appellant