High CourtsSingle Bench(1956) 09 MAD CK 0026

In Re: Viswanathan Chettiar

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 September 1956 · Citation: AIR 1957 Mad 300 : (1957) CriLJ 519 : (1957) 70 LW 207

HON’BLE JUDGES
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J
CASE NUMBER
S.R. No''s. 21577, 21578 and 24834 of 1956

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 350 words

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.—The point that arises for consideration here is whether the application for special leave from the order of acquittal for which a period of sixty days has been prescribed u/s 417(4), Criminal P.C., excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act if there is delay in filing such an application within the period of sixty days, The office has pointed out in its note that Section 29(2) of the Limitation

Act would apply to the case and therefore Section 5 would not be available to the complainant when he is out of time. But Section 29(2) comes into operation only when the special law prescribes a period different from the period prescribed by the first schedule to the Limitation Act. In this case of special leave against acquittal the schedule to the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period at all. Such being the case only where there is difference between the period prescribed by this schedule and the period prescribed by the special law would Section 29(2) be applicable. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no such difference between the period prescribed by the law of limitation and the Criminal P.C. For the first time it appears that u/s 417(4) a period of sixty days has been prescribed for filing an application for special leave against acquittal. Section

1, Sub-section (2) of the Criminal P.C. makes all laws applicable to the Criminal P.C. including the law of limitation and nothing could prevent the appellant from taking advantage of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2.

The question then is whether the complainant has satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the special leave application. It

transpires in this case that there was just a delay of one day after the reopening of the Court before which the application should have been filed.

Ordinarily one day's delay is always excused and In this case I am satisfied there is sufficient cause shown for the delay. So this delay will be

excused.

3.

Post the appeal for admission.