9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 5 of the Limitation Act on proper case having been made out? Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides as follows: Any appeal or application for a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefore ,when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period . 2. On behalf of the respondents, it has been urged that this section does not apply, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified subject or class of subjects. The right to appeal from an order of acquittal was formerly conferred only upon the State. A private party or a complainant did not enjoy such right. The right was conferred for the first time in 1955, when the new Section 417 was enacted. Before the complainant can file an appeal against an Older of acquittal, he has first to make an application for special leave under Sub-section (3) of Section 417. Sub-section (4) prescribes a period of limitation for such an application. It states that no such application shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. This period of limitation is prescribed not for all appeals under the Criminal Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in the first schedule and a special law alters or modifies that period, and inasmuch as the Limitation Act does not provide for a period of limitation in respect of an appeal from a special officer to the High Court, Section 29(2) has no application to this particular special law. In our opinion, that is not the correct interpretation to put upon the language used by the legislature, viz a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the first schedule'. The period of limitation may be different under two different circumstances. It may be different if it modifies or alters a period of limitation fixed by the first schedule to the Limitation Act. It may also be different in the sense that it departs f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo cases oil this point is correct. We agree with the observations in the judgment in the Canara Bank's case, 54 Bom LR 661: AIR 1953 Bom 35 which I have quoted above. 4. It has also been urged by Mr. Mandlekar that clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 only makes inapplicable those provisions of the Limitation Act, which relate to the computation of the period of limitation. He has contended that the words for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed can only mean for the purpose of compuling the period of limitation. He has urged that Section 5 has no relevance when the period of limitation is to be determined. It comes into play after the period of limitation has expired and where the question for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 5 is one of the sections, which has to be referred to for deciding whether a proceeding should be entertained or whether it should be thrown out as being barred by time. This section will therefore also not apply, where a period of limitation is prescribed by a special law. 6. The argument urged by Mr. Mandlekar AIR 1953 Bom 35 : The other contention of Mr. Adarkar is that Section 29(2) only applies to that limited class of sections in the Limitation Act which deal with the computation of the period of limitation, and inasmuch as Section 5 does not deal with computation of the period of limitation, Section 29(2) has no application. In our opinion, the expression for the purpose of determining any period of limitation' does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of acquittal ,that the High Court has no power to extend the period of limitation, and that the bar to the High Court's entertaining an application under sub-section (3) after the expiry of sixty days is absolute. This case was referred to in Municipal Board v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1959 All 500 in which it was observed that this case may require further consideration. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in Venkata Subbareddi v. Papireddi, (S) AIR 1957 And Pra 406 and In re P. Adeshamma AIR 1958 And Pra 230. The same view has been taken by a single judge of the Madras High Court in Coimbatore Municipality v. Narayanan, AIR 1958 Mad 416. The basis of these decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
