Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 2566 (MAD)

Untitled judgment

1999-11-30

BASHEER AHMED SAYEED

body1999
Order The point that arises for consideration here is whether theapplication for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal for which aperiod of 60 days has been prescribed under section 417 (4) of the CriminalProcedure Code, excludes the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, ifthere is delay in filing such an application within the period of 60 days. Theoffice has pointed out in its note that section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act,would apply to the case and therefore section 5 would not be available to thecomplainant when he is ou1 of time. But section 29 (2) comes into operation onlywhen the special law prescribes a period different from the period prescribed bythe First Schedule to the Limitation Act. In this case for a special leaveagainst acquittal the schedule to the Limitation Act does not prescribe anyperiod at all. Such being the case only where there is diffrence between theperiod prescribed by this schedule and the period prescribed by the special lawwould section 29 (2) be applicable. So far as the present case is concernedthere is no such difference between the period prescribed by the Law ofLimitation and the Criminal Procedure Code. For the first time it appears thatunder section 417(4) a period of 60 days has been prescribed for filing anapplication for special leave against acquittal. Section 1, sub-section (2) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code makes all laws applicable to the Criminal ProcedureCode including the Law of Limitation and nothing could prevent the appellantfrom taking advantage of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The question then is whether the complainant has satisfied that there wassufficient cause for the delay in filing the special leave application. Ittranspires in this case that there was just a delay of one day after there-opening of the Court before which the application should have been filed.Ordinarily one day’s delay is always excused and in this case I am satisfiedthere is sufficient cause shown for the delay. So this delay will be excused. Post the appeal for admission. R.M. ------- Delay excused.