COIMBATORE MUNICIPALITY Vs. K L NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises for determination is whether when there is a delay beyond' 60 days in preferring under Section 417 (4), Cripc an application for granting special leave to appeal the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act runs as follows:

(2.) BASHEER Ahmed Sayeed J. in In re Viswanathan Chefctair , held that Section 5of the Limitation Act would apply to applications of this nature on the ground that only where there is difference between the period prescribed by the Limitation Act and' the period prescribed by the special law, Section 29 (2) would be applicable and S- 5 would not be available, and that in the case of special leave against acquittal the schedule to the Limitation Act not prescribing any period and thereby no difference between the period prescribed by the schedule and the period prescribed by the special law, Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act would not be applicable. Therefore, ho held that Section 5 can be applied.

(3.) I do not wish to express my disagreement with this view, but we are on stronger ground on the basis of which this application of Section 5 has been rested by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In Venkata Subbareddi v. Duwuru Papireddi (S) A. I. R. 1957 Andh Pra 406 (B), Umamaheswaram J, held that the Criminal Procedure Code is a general law relating to procedure and not a special law within the meaning of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. As Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals, it equally applies to all applications for leave to appeal whether provided' under Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act or not. It is only in respect of applications other than applications for leave to appeal or for review of judgment that the terms of Section 5 should be specially made applicable. Hence the terms of Section 5 are applicable to applications for special leave under the new Section 417 (4) Cri. P, c. It is permissible to adopt a beneficent construction of a rule of limitation if alternative constructions are possible. For this purpose Public Prosecutor v. K. M. Vedantam was relied on.