IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Keshavu Devi – Appellant
Versus
Puran Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The victim has filed the present appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The Registry has raised an objection that the appeal is barred by 01 year, 04 months and 03 days. The applicant had filed an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This application was opposed on behalf of the respondents.
2. We have heard Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State.
3. Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Registry has erred in reporting that the appeal is barred by limitation. No limitation period has been provided for an appeal filed by the victim under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Such an appeal can be filed at any time. In the alternative, he submitted that if the appeal is held to be barred by limitation, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused submitted that the appeal, by the victim, can be filed w
Tata Steel Ltd. v. Atma Tube Products Ltd.
Mast Ram Tiwari v. State of U.P.
Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat
Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar
North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd.
The court established that appeals by victims under Section 372 Cr.P.C. are subject to a limitation period of 90 days, drawing parallels with provisions for other appeals.
The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.
Appeals under NIA Act Section 21(5) filed beyond maximum 90 days are not maintainable; delay uncondonable as provision mandatory, excluding Limitation Act Section 5 application.
The court ruled that strict compliance with statutory time limits is mandatory, and substantial justice cannot override clear legislative provisions regarding delay in filing appeals.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.