9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Delay in making an application under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and applicability of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
For the delay of seventeen days in filing the application, the applicant cited health reasons, specifically heart ailment, blood pressure, and diabetes, which rendered the applicant bedridden and unable to approach an advocate within the limitation period. The opposition from the respondents was based on two grounds: first, that the limitation period under section 378 of the Code excludes the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, and second, that the lack of a proper explanation for the delay, as no medical certificate was provided despite citing sickness. The main issue was whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to an application made under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code. The negative language used in sub section 5 was argued to exclude the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the Court found that previous decisions had established that section 5 would indeed apply. The Court referred to previous cases such as Sagunabai Lahanu Shinde Vs. Patru Goma Lengure and others, where it was held that section 5 of the Limitation Act would govern an application under sub-section 4 of section 378 of the Code. The Court also considered the difference between the old and new Limitation Acts, emphasizing that under the new Act, section 5 cannot be excluded unless expressly stated in the special law, which was not the case in this situation. The Court rejected the argument that the medical certificate of the applicant's sickness was not provided, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Ultimately, the Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, noting that the delay was only seventeen days and that a liberal approach should be adopted in such cases.
|
