9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Justification of the court's conclusion regarding the petitioner's right and title over the attached property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The primary question addressed is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Section 84(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates a six-month period for filing a claim petition from the date of attachment. The petitioner argued that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which incorporates Sections 4 to 24 of the Act, should apply to the petition under Section 84(1) Cr.P.C., thereby enabling the court to condone delays. The court examined the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded. The court noted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for applications not otherwise specified, but Section 84(1) Cr.P.C. prescribes a different period (six months). The court referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. L.N. Mishra, which clarified that "expressly excluded" does not necessitate specific exclusionary language in the special law. Instead, it must be determined if the special law forms a complete code that implicitly excludes the Limitation Act's provisions. The court concluded that the provisions of Sections 83 to 86 of Chapter VI C of the Cr.P.C., while exhaustive, do not implicitly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a claim petition under Section 84(1) Cr.P.C., allowing for the condonation of delays. 2. Justification of the court's conclusion regarding the petitioner's right and title over the attached property: The Magistrate initially dismissed the claim petition on two grounds: it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period, and the petitioner failed to establish their right over the attached property. The court below did not collect oral evidence but relied on documentary evidence (Exts. C1 to C3). The petitioner contended that the property was transferred to them via a registered sale deed before the attachment date, thus the first respondent had no rights over the property when it was attached. However, the Magistrate found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of mutation and revenue payment following the transfer, thus not satisfactorily establishing their title. The High Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner's right and title over the property afresh. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to file a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, detailing relevant circumstances for delay condonation. The Magistrate should then allow all interested parties to present additional data and contentions. Conclusion: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Magistrate was instructed to reconsider the application, allowing the petitioner to file a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and additional statements if necessary. The second respondent and any interested parties were also permitted to oppose the application. The parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate on 25.9.06, with the Magistrate endeavoring to dispose of the claim petition within 45 days from that date.
|
