Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing special leave to appeal against acquittal required reference to a larger bench on the question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Section 378(4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The competing authorities on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 were examined, including the line of cases treating the special leave provisions for appeals against acquittal as a special law and the contrary view on whether the scheme of the special law excludes Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The earlier larger-bench view applying the test of the scheme of the special law, the nature of the remedy, and whether the enactment is a complete code was preferred over the later two-judge view. In that setting, the question whether delay could be condoned in a delayed application under Section 378(4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to raise an important jurisdictional issue requiring consideration by a larger bench.
Conclusion: The matter was referred for determination by a larger bench on the framed questions, including whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stand excluded for such applications and whether the delay-condonation application is maintainable.