TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s application filed for condonation of delay read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been rejected and consequently, the revision petition against the discharge of respondent No. 1 has also been dismissed. 2. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the revisional Court is absolutely unjustified in not condoning the delay by taking liberal view of the matter and also went wrong in not extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period from 2-5-2013 to 26-8-2013 during which period Cr. M.P. No. 459/2013 was pending before this Court, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by condoning the delay after extending the benefit of Section 14 of the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2013 with a delay of approximately 2 years, but that application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition, on 26-8-2013 against which the petitioner preferred revision on 12-11-2013 with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has been dismissed by the revisional Court finding that the application for grant of leave to appeal was filed before this Court with a delay of approximately 2 years and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application. Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under:- "14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.--(1) In computing the period of lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision is that limitation will remain in suspense while the litigant was bona fide prosecuting for his rights in a Court of justice due to wrong advice. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 contains a general principle based on justice, equity and good conscience and the said principle should be applied without strict regard to the period of limitation prescribed. A person prosecuting under a mistake of law is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 whereas while dealing with a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a Court has to be satisfied that there was reasonable ground for approaching the Court late and that each day of delay is more or less explained. Thus, exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra), it would be stretching too much to hold that it should also be applicable in criminal proceeding. 9. In the matter of Sakhichand Sahu and others v. Ishwar Dayal Sahu and others AIR 1967 Patna 351, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has clearly held that the period spent in prosecuting an application in revision before the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate cannot be excluded in computing the said period of ninety days, until Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is suitably amended by the Parliament. 10. Thus, the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is confined to suit and appeal or revision, it cannot be made applicable to criminal proceeding like revision. However, Section 470(1) of the Cod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no satisfactory explanation offered before the revisional Court in revision and secondly, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to criminal proceeding like revision and the provision contained in Section 470(1) of the CrPC would be applicable. Assuming it otherwise, the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay from 6-6-2011 to 2-5-2013 for more than two years in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal, as no sufficient reason has been assigned for delay of two years in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal questioning the order of discharge of respondent No. 1. 12. The Supreme Court in J. Kumaradasan Nair (supra) has held that the court will not apply the benefi....