SLP against order of acquittal filed beyond period of limitation cannot be allowed.

M. Jeyapaul, J.

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent to recall the orders passed by this Court on 17.11.2005 in Crl.O.P. No. 31531 of 2005 and Crl.A. No.897 of 2005.

2. This Court was pleased to grant special leave in Crl.O.P. No. 31531 of 2005 to prefer the Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2005 as against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The petitioner has contended in the petition that this Special Leave Petition in Crl.M.P. No. 350 of 2006 was entertained and allowed by this Court without there being any application to condone the delay in preferring the special leave petition as against the judgment of the Trial Court passed on 29.7.2005. It has been contended that the appeal itself should not have been numbered even before the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by this Court. Simultaneous numbering of the Special Leave Petition as well as the Criminal Appeal is against the spirit of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Considering the importance in the challenge made by the petitioner herein as against the procedure adopted by the Registry, the Court thought it fit to associate the Presidents of the respective Bar Association to assist this Court to determine the issues involved in this matter.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Sriramulu, came forward to represent the Bar Associations and the respondent also was represented by his counsel. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Sriramulu representing the Bar, Dr. A.E. Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Theissues which have arisen in this petition are:

( 1 ) Whether the Criminal Appeal can be numbered simultaneously with the petition seeking special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal ?

( 2 ) Whether the petition seeking special leave was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?

( 3 ) To what relief the petitioner is entitled in this petition ?

7. Thefact remains that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, has passed a verdict of acquittal in C.C. No. 69 of 2005 on 29.7.2005 as against the respondent herein. The certified copy of the judgment would disclose that the copy application to secure the copy of the judgment was filed on the very same day of pronouncement of the judgment. The certified copy of the order was made ready by the Court on 24.8.2005.

8. Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

“Section 378. Appeal in case of acquittal.— (5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.”

9. Sixty days time has been given under the aforesaid provision of law to prefer the application seeking special leave of appeal from the date of that order of acquittal.

10. Section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows:

“Section 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.— (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded.”

11. The date on which the judgment was pronounced and the time taken by the Court to issue certified copy of the judgment to prefer petition seeking leave to appeal also will have to be exclu