IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

C.R.M.S.P.L. 35 of 2025

IA NO: CRAN/1/2025

Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata Zonal Unit

vs.

Sambhu Verma

For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Advocate

Mr. R.R. Mohanty, Advocate

Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Advocate

For the opposite

Party : Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on : 21.08.2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appellant seeks to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal

passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge, Special

Court under NDPS Act, Howrah, in T.R. (N.D.P.S.) Case No.07 of 2016.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there is a

delay of 111 days in making and filing the appeal. Consequently,

appellant filed an application for condonation of delay.

3. Relying upon 2024 INSC 125 (Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence) learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted in case of an application under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submits that, Section 378(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not oust the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. Relying upon 2023 INSC 885 [Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.] learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant explained the cause of delay adequately. Therefore, therefore, the delay in filing the application under Section 378 should be condoned.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the appellant did not explain the delay adequately. He relies upon (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 (Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr.) and submits that, condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments and offering usual explanation that file was pending for procedural red tape. According to him, appellant did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Appellant before us as noted above is seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

7. According to the appellant, there is delay of 111 days in making and filing the application seeking leave to appeal.

8. Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. (supra) is of the following view:-

“In the present case, there is no such exclusionary provision under Section 378 of CrPC, or at any other place in the Code. The benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can therefore be availed in an appeal against acquittal. There is no force in the contentions raised by the appellants as regards the non-application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the present case and the appeal is therefore dismissed.”

9. In view of Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. (supra) Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted for consideration of an application under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed under Section 378(5) thereof.

10. In Postmaster General & Ors. (supra), the delay was of 427 days in filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that, no explanation was offered as to why application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment was not filed within the prescribed period. Moreover, delay at every stage remains unexplained despite the authorities being well aware of the issues involved including the period of limitation. The facts of the present case are different.

11. In the present case, appellant seeks condonation of delay of 111 days in making and filing an application for grant of leave not only on the procedural delay of the department but also the learned advocate engage