Condonation of delay in special leave to appeal against acquittal remains maintainable where Section 378 CrPC does not exclude Section 5 Limitation Act.

An application for condonation of delay in seeking special leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC is maintainable because Section 378 does not contain any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The later Supreme Court ruling was treated as binding, and earlier decisions under different statutory settings, including the old Code and old Limitation Act, were held not to displace that position. Arguments that the later ruling was incomplete or ineffective were rejected, so the delay may be considered under the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for condonation of delay in seeking special leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable and whether the delay can be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The reference was resolved by following the binding effect of the Supreme Court's later decision which held that there is no exclusionary provision in Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barring the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reasoning accepted that the scheme of the special provision did not expressly exclude the operation of the provisions relating to extension of limitation, and that earlier authorities dealing with different statutory settings, including the old Code and the old Limitation Act, did not displace that conclusion. The Court also held that arguments suggesting the later Supreme Court decision was incomplete or that earlier cases rendered it ineffective could not be accepted in the face of binding precedent.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is maintainable and the delay can be considered for condonation.

---