JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. for special leave to appeal before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the Criminal Complaint case No. 2069/2007 (Babulal Vs. Sunderlal and others), has been dismissed for want of prosecution and respondents have been acquitted.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that he has filed complaint against respondents for committing offence punishable under Sections 500, 504, 120 B, and Section 34 Indian Penal Code and same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 09.09.2010. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Revision No. 217/2011 before learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, same was dismissed by the Revisional court vide order dated 02.04.2013 thereafter, the petitioner filed petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the Revisional court before this Court . This Court vide its order dated 08.11.2013 dismissed the CRMP No. 600 of 2013 directing him to take appropriate steps in terms of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed acquittal appeal No. 63/2014 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 18.06.2014 dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to file duly constituted petition in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present leave to appeal has been filed with a prayer that leave be kindly granted against order dated 09.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Complaint Case No. 2069/2007 and acquittal appeal be kindly allowed.

3. From perusal of the report submitted by the Registry, there is delay of 1316 days in filing the present petition. The applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay mentioning the steps taken by him from 2010 to 2014 by prosecuting remedies before different form including this Court and would pray for condoning the delay in filing this petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 7 would submit that the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay is not maintainable and the petitioner has not explained the delay. There is no bonafide reason for delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay as well as present acquittal appeal may kindly be dismissed. He would further submit that It is crystal clear that if a private person, who has filed a complaint under Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, on the basis of a private complaint, wherein the accused is acquitted, an appeal does not lie before the High Court under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., but an appeal lie under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. The rider put under Section 378 (5) is that in order to entertain the appeal Special Leave has to be sought. But under sub clause (5) that Special Leave Application has to be filed within 60 days computed from the date of the order of acquittal that means only statutory periods which can be excluded like the taking of the certified copy of the order or the day on which the court is closed, in such circumstances, only such period has allowed by law can be extended as per the plain reading of the above said provision, therefore, provision of Limitation Act is expressly excluded, as such, application for condonation of delay is not maintainable and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition as well as the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. The issue required for determination before this Court is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the filing leave to file appeal under Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C. for filing of appeal against acquittal, therefore, it is apt to examine the provision of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., which is extracted below:-

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2