JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment passed by the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Jaipur acquitting the Respondent u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal case No. 663/1955/50T of 1956. 2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Respondents that the application for grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal having been made after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal as fixed by Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the said application for leave was out of time and hence the appeal is not maintainable. Admittedly sixty days had expired from the date of the order of acquittal. The relevant dates are that on 20th November, 1956 the Respondents were acquitted by an order of the Magistrate, On January 21, 1957 the Appellant filed a petition before this Court for special leave to appeal u/s 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The Appellant on the other hand relied on the fact that she was entitled to exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the order appealed from u/s 12 of the Limitation Act. The certified copy of the order of acquittal was obtained by the Appellant on November 23, 1956. Therefore, if the period of limitation is computed from November 23, 1956 when the certified copy of the order was obtained, the Appellant was within time in filing her petition for special leave to appeal on January 21, 1957. 3. The question, therefore, that arises for decision is whether the terms of Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure preclude the application of the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Putchalapalli Venkata Subbareddi Vs. Duvvuru Papireddi and Another, decided this point. The question for decision before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was whether the terms of Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure precluded the application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the case, it was contended that the words of Section 417(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, are mandatory in character and, therefore, the period prescribed under that section cannot be extended under any circumstances. In the case, it was contended that the words of Section 417(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, are mandatory in character and, therefore, the period prescribed under that section cannot be extended under any circumstances. Reference was also made to Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act which reads as follows: 29(2):- Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law (a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Sections 9 to 18 and Section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law: and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. While discussing Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on an earlier Madras decision in Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Kannappa Chetty alias Arunachala Chetty, on a question whether the CPC is a special law within the meaning of Section 29 of the limitation Act where it was held that the CPC is not a special law but is a general law relating to procedure, held that the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a special law so as to fall within the terms of Section 29 of the limitation Act and, therefore, Section 29 has no application. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also considered whether Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure excluded the application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and held that the provisions of Section 5 would apply to an application for special leave u/s 417(4) Code of Criminal Procedure In paragraph 8 of the judgment the High Court specifically referred to Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Following the reasoning given in the said decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, agree with the view that the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply to applications for special leave u/s 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure As observed in a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Following the reasoning given in the said decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, agree with the view that the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply to applications for special leave u/s 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure As observed in a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Kannappa Chetty alias Arunachala Chetty. It is permissible to adopt a beneficent construction of a rule of limitation if alternative constructions are possible. This view as to the construction of Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the latest decision in In Re: Parchuri Adeshamma where it was held that the Code of Criminal Procedure is Dot a special law but a general law relating to procedure and, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to the application for special leave made after the period prescribed by Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the High Court can, in an appropriate case, extend that period. Following these decisions my finding is that the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the limitation Act and the period required for obtaining the certified copy of the order of acquittal must be allowed. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Respondents fails. The learned Judge discussed the evidence and held that the accused was held not guilty. X X X X 8. The result, therefore, is that the order of acquittal of the Respondents is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed