Condonation of delay applies to appeals against acquittal under CrPC when Section 5 is not expressly excluded.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a belated appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC because the limitation scheme contains no express exclusion of the condonation power. Applying Section 29(2), the Court held that Sections 4 to 24 extend to special or local laws unless excluded by necessary words or clear statutory scheme. Earlier authorities were distinguished as they concerned enactments that expressly barred enlargement of time. Sufficient cause therefore enables condonation of delay, and the delayed appeal against acquittal was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a belated appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether delay in such appeal can be condoned in the absence of an express exclusion.

Analysis: The Court contrasted the old limitation regime considered in earlier authority with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under the 1963 Act, the provisions in Sections 4 to 24 apply to special or local laws unless they are expressly excluded. The Court held that the limitation prescribed for an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contain any express exclusion of Section 5. Authorities dealing with statutes that expressly barred enlargement of time were distinguished because their language and statutory scheme were materially different. The Court therefore concluded that the benefit of Section 5 remains available where sufficient cause is shown.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and delay may be condoned if sufficient cause is established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed, and the delayed appeal against acquittal was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes limitation but does not expressly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the court retains power to condone delay in the prescribed proceeding.

---