9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not include an appeal or an application. However, the Supreme Court in the matter of J. Kumaradasan Nair and others v. IRIC Sohan and Others [ 2009 (2) TMI 796 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only in suits in view of the definition of suit contained in Section 2(l) of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the principle thereof would be applicable for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing revision application in terms of Section 5 thereof. Whether in a criminal proceeding, Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable? - HELD THAT:- The applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is confined to suit and appeal or revision, it cannot be made applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in criminal proceeding. There are no merit in this petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. - Hon'ble Judges Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. For the Appellant : Hari Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondents : B.L. Dembra, Advocate and Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Adv. ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-7-2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in an unregistered criminal revision in the matter of Radheshyam Khemka v. Raju Yadav alias Ram Kumar and another, whereby the petitioner's/complainant's application filed for condonation of delay read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en for such a delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal. As such, the revisional Court has rightly declined to condone the inordinate delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal and therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1/accused was discharged on 6-6-2011 against which the petitioner filed application for grant of leave to appeal namely Cr. M.P. No. 459/2013 on 2-5-2013 with a delay of approximately 2 years, but that application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the protection against the bar of limitation of a person honestly doing his best to get his case tried on the merits, but failing through the Court being unable to give him such a trial. Section 14 provides for exclusion of time spent in proceedings bona fide, in a Court which lacked jurisdiction. The aims and objectives of the said provision are to afford protection against the bar of limitation to a litigant who was honestly prosecuting the lis before a Court which had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for. The principle underlying the said provision is that limitation will remain in suspense while the litigant was bona fide prosecuting for his rights in a Court of justice due to wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applicable? 8. Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, as noticed herein-above, is only applicable to suits and by virtue of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J. Kumaradasan Nair (supra), it has been made applicable to revision or appeal arising out of the said proceeding, but its application is restricted only to civil proceeding, it does not apply to the criminal proceeding stretching beyond the civil proceeding and by virtue of Section 14(1), appeal or revision (civil), by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in J. Kumaradasan Nair (supra), it would be stretching too much to hold that it should also be applicable in criminal proceeding. 9. In the matter of Sakhichand Sahu and others v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1963 finding that the petitioner for the first time filed application for grant of leave to appeal (Cr. M.P. No. 459/2013) before this Court with a delay of approximately 2 years with no sufficient reason for delay in filing the same and therefore Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied. In the considered opinion of this Court, firstly, there is delay of approximately two years from 6-6-2011 to 2-5-2013 in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal before this Court filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for which there is no satisfactory explanation offered before the revisional Court in revision and secondly, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
