Section 5 limitation relief applies to criminal revision proceedings absent express exclusion, and short delay was condoned for sufficient cause.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to criminal revision applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the Code does not expressly exclude it, and Section 29(2) allows Sections 4 to 24 to operate in the absence of exclusion. A short 19-day delay was condoned because the applicant gave a supported explanation that the certified copy had been misplaced in the advocate's office, with no material showing deliberate negligence or inaction. The refusal to condone delay was therefore set aside, and the criminal revision was allowed to proceed subject to the Court's conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a criminal revision application under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when no express exclusion is provided; (ii) Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 19 days' delay in filing the revision.

Issue (i): Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a criminal revision application under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when no express exclusion is provided.

Analysis: The prescribed period for filing a criminal revision is governed by Article 131 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The revisional provisions in Sections 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not prescribe any separate limitation period for revisions. Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions in Sections 4 to 24 apply unless expressly excluded by the special law. Since the Code contains no express exclusion of Section 5 for criminal revisions, the power to condone delay remains available.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to criminal revision applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the absence of express exclusion.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 19 days' delay in filing the revision.

Analysis: The applicant explained that the certified copy was handed over for filing the revision and was misplaced in the advocate's office, resulting in a short delay. The explanation was supported by affidavit. The delay was modest and there was no material to disbelieve the explanation. In such circumstances, the delay was not attributable to deliberate negligence or inaction.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was made out and the delay was rightly condoned.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was set aside and the applicant was permitted to pursue the criminal revision, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 applies to criminal revision proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless its application is expressly excluded, and delay may be condoned on proof of sufficient cause.

---