9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Criminal Revision Applications. 2. Interpretation of "special law" under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 3. Sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Criminal Revision Applications: The applicant/husband challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which rejected his application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Additional Sessions Judge held that Section 5 does not apply to revision petitions. The applicant argued that under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, a period of 90 days is prescribed for filing a revision application under the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 5 should apply unless specifically excluded. The court found that the Additional Sessions Judge's view was without application of mind and contrary to law, as the Limitation Act's provisions, including Section 5, should govern the period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision Application. 2. Interpretation of "Special Law" under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act: The non-applicant's counsel argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure is a special law providing its own period of limitation, thus excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the court clarified that merely because the Code prescribes different periods of limitation for certain proceedings does not make it a special law under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (a saving clause) indicates that unless a specific provision to the contrary exists, general provisions of the Limitation Act apply. Therefore, the prescribed period for filing a revision is governed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act, and Section 5 can be invoked for condonation of delay. 3. Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay: The court examined whether the applicant/husband had shown sufficient cause for the 19-day delay in filing the revision application. The applicant stated that the delay occurred because the certified copy of the order was misplaced by the clerk of his counsel. The court found no reason to disbelieve the applicant's explanation and noted that the non-applicant wife did not respond to the notice. The court concluded that the delay was not due to negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the court condoned the delay, imposing conditions that the applicant must deposit all arrears of maintenance and continue monthly payments, along with paying costs to the non-applicant. Conclusion: The court allowed the criminal application, quashed the impugned order, and condoned the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. The applicant was ordered to comply with maintenance payments and pay costs to the non-applicant, ensuring the revision application would be heard by the Additional Sessions Judge upon compliance.
|
