Section 5 Limitation Act applies to appeals against acquittal under Section 378(5) CrPC, delay can be condoned

The SC held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals against acquittal under Section 378(5) of CrPC. The court found no exclusionary provision in Section 378 of CrPC or elsewhere in the Code that would prevent condonation of delay. The benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in appeals against acquittal. The court distinguished previous cases involving special laws with clear non-condonation provisions. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC.
2. Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 vis-à-vis special laws.
3. Relevance of precedents set by Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh and Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Summary:

1. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Appeals Against Acquittal:
The appellant challenged the Delhi High Court's order allowing a belated appeal against acquittal, arguing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to appeals under Section 378 of CrPC. The appellant relied on the precedent set by Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, where it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to special leave to appeal under the old CrPC.

2. Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Court distinguished the present case from Kaushalya Rani, noting that the latter dealt with the old Limitation Act of 1908, which expressly excluded Section 5. Under the new Limitation Act of 1963, Section 29(2) does not exclude Section 5 unless expressly stated by the special law. The Court cited Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which clarified that Section 5 applies to special laws under the 1963 Act unless expressly excluded.

3. Relevance of Precedents:
The appellant's reliance on Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra and Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar was found misplaced. These cases dealt with special laws that explicitly barred the application of Section 5, unlike Section 378 of CrPC, which contains no such exclusionary provision. The Court emphasized that the language of the special law is crucial in determining the applicability of Section 5.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be availed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC. The interim order dated 20.03.2017 was vacated, and the Registry was directed to inform the Delhi High Court to continue the proceedings.

---