HANEEFA RAWTHER Vs. JOY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . M. P.Nos. 857 and 502 of 1976 arc petitions for condonation of delay in filing applications for special leave to appeal and Crl. M P. No. 619 of 1976 is a petition for condonation of delay in filing a revision against acquittal.

(2.) THE earlier two petitions are opposed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay since the period of limitation prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing an appeal against acquittal has expired and that extension of time under S.5 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted. This contention has to fail. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manqu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1976 M. L. J. (Crl.) 286). There, the Supreme Court held that S.5 of the Limitation Act would apply in all cases unless the special or local law expressly excluded the applicability of that section. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the provisions for filing special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under S.417 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The same principles should apply to similar applications under the new Code. S.29 (2) of the Limitation Act expressly provides that S.5 is applicable where it is not excluded by the provisions of the special enactments. This Court has therefore jurisdiction to consider an application for condonation of delay if there are grounds to do so.

(3.) ID Crl. M. P. No. 619 of 1976 also, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Hence the application is also allowed.