Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1017 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Jaspalsingh

2018-12-11

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard on IA No. 5414/2016, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Appellant State of M.P has filed this petition under section 378 (3) of the CrPC read with section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Food Safety Authority, Dewas in Food Safety Appeal No. 221/2015 along with IA No. 5414/2016 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. The trial Court had earlier convicted the respondents and sentenced them under various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 wherein the respondent No. 1 was imposed with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, respondent No. 2 was imposed with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and respondent No. 3 was imposed with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.2015 acquitted the respondents and it was ordered that the fine amount if deposited be returned to them. Hence, this petition has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate authority. Along with this petition, an application (IA No. 5414/16) under section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed. In the application, it has been mentioned that as per section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, there is a time limitation of 60 days within which the appeal can be filed and there is a delay of only 59 days in this matter in filing the appeal, hence the delay be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted a written reply to the application. He submits that the judgment was pronounced on 16.12.2015 and only that period can be excluded which was required for obtaining the copy of the judgment and if that period is excluded, then the delay in filing the appeal would be more than 120 days which is the maximum period allowed and not the 59 days, hence the appeal is time barred. 4. Considered rival contentions. 4. Considered rival contentions. The provision of section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is reproduced as under: “(6) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal to him on any question of fact or law arising out of such order: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within further period not exceeding sixty days.” 5. It is also submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prescribing the period for condoning the delay, general provisions under section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. In support, decisions in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Narayandas (deceased) through Lrs Smt.Radhdevi and others v. Gopaldas s/o Dulichand, reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ 466 have been cited. A perusal of these citations show that in any special enactment, if there is a provision to condone the delay for a specific period, then general provisions under section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable. Thus, it is clear that maximum period available for filing an appeal under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is only 120 days. As perusal of the appeal shows that it was filed on 13.6.2016 against against the judgment dated 16.12.2015, which is a period of 179 days. In IA No. 5414/16, in paragraph-2, it has been shown that the copy of the judgment passed on 16.12.2015 was obtained on 18.1.2016 i.e. 33 days after pronouncement of the judgment. As per section 12 of the Limitation Act only that period can be excluded which has elapsed between the submission of copying application and receipt of copy of the judgment. Thus, out of 179 days only 33 days can be excluded which means the appeal was filed after 146 days. Thus, the period of delay is much more than 120 days which is the maximum prescribed period including 60 days of condonation of delay period. Thus, out of 179 days only 33 days can be excluded which means the appeal was filed after 146 days. Thus, the period of delay is much more than 120 days which is the maximum prescribed period including 60 days of condonation of delay period. Thus, this appeal is clearly barred by limitation and section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot come into play in support of the appellant due to the reasons cited earlier. In the result, IA No. 5414/16 is rejected. Consequently, the petition as well as the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.