Judgment :- 1. Crl. M. P.Nos. 857 and 502 of 1976 arc petitions for condonation of delay in filing applications for special leave to appeal and Crl. M P. No. 619 of 1976 is a petition for condonation of delay in filing a revision against acquittal. 2. The earlier two petitions are opposed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay since the period of limitation prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing an appeal against acquittal has expired and that extension of time under S.5 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted. This contention has to fail. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manqu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1976 M. L. J. (Crl.) 286). There, the Supreme Court held that S.5 of the Limitation Act would apply in all cases unless the special or local law expressly excluded the applicability of that section. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the provisions for filing special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under S.417 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The same principles should apply to similar applications under the new Code. S.29 (2) of the Limitation Act expressly provides that S.5 is applicable where it is not excluded by the provisions of the special enactments. This Court has therefore jurisdiction to consider an application for condonation of delay if there are grounds to do so. 3. In Crl. M. P. No. 857 of 1976, the delay is of 7 days. I find that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay. Hence this application is allowed. 4. id Crl. M. P. No. 619 of 1976 also, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Hence the application is also allowed. 5. Crl. MP. No. 501 of 1976 is an application for leave to appeal against acquittal. This was originally filed without an application for condonation of delay. The judgment acquitting the accused was pronounced on 23rd January, 1976. It is seen that a copy application was made on the same day and stamp papers were furnished along with the said application. It is also seen that the copy was ready on the next day itself. The petitioner made enquiries about the copy application on 112 -1976. The judgment acquitting the accused was pronounced on 23rd January, 1976. It is seen that a copy application was made on the same day and stamp papers were furnished along with the said application. It is also seen that the copy was ready on the next day itself. The petitioner made enquiries about the copy application on 112 -1976. He then came to know that the copy was ready on 241-1976 itself. The endorsement on the certified copy does not indicate the date fixed to receive the copy The petitioner reckoned the date for Limitation from 11-21976, in which case the application will be in time. But the office returned the petition on the ground that the application was not within time. Hence, he filed Crl. MP. No 502 of 1976 for condonation of delay. 6. I hold that the application was presented in time and there is no delay. The difficulty in this case has arisen because of the fact that R.254 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, was not adhered to. It reads as follows: 254. Endorsement of copies. Every copy shall bear an endorsement initialled by the examiner, showing the following particulars: 1. Name of the court. 2. Year and number of the suit or other proceeding. 3. Name of the applicant. 4. Number and date of the application. 5. Date of calling for stamp papers 6. Date of production of papers. 7. Date of calling for additional papers. 8. Date of production of additional papers. 9. Date when copy was ready. 10. Date notified for appearance to receive the copy. 11. Date when copy was delivered". There is no uniformity in the endorsements made on certified copies of orders and judgments of the Courts below in the State While in the erstwhile Travancore area, the date to receive the copy is also entered, in the erstwhile Malabar area, necessary care is not taken to give this date. The old seals do not contain an entry regarding this date. It is therefore necessary that all courts take notice of the fact that the date for appearance to receive the copy should be indicated, to avoid the complaint as the one we have in this case. Since in this case, the main application itself, is in time, the application for condonation of delay is not necessary. Crl. M P.No. 502 of 1976 is accordingly dismissed. Post Crl. Since in this case, the main application itself, is in time, the application for condonation of delay is not necessary. Crl. M P.No. 502 of 1976 is accordingly dismissed. Post Crl. M. P. No. 501 of 1976 for orders. The Crl. M. Ps. are disposed of as above.