MANGU RAM versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 10-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
260 
MANGU RAM 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
October 10, 1975 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-ss. 5. 29 (2)-Scope of. 
The respondent sought special leave to appeal to the High Court under 
s. 417 ( 3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I 898 against the acquittal of 
the petitioner by the trial court. The application was made beyond the period 
of limitation but the High Court condoned the delay under s. 5 of the I.imitation 
Act 1%3. 
r 
\ 
C 
In their application for special leave to appeal to this Court the petitioners 
~
D 
E 
F 
contended that the time limit of 60 days prescribed under s. 417(4) was 
mandatory and as such the High Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time 
limit by resort to s. 5 of the I.imitation Act, 1963. 
Dismissing the special leave petitions, 
HEI.D : ( 1) The order granting special leave wac; not an order outside the 
power of the High Court. In a case where an application for special leave 
to appeal from an order of acquittal is filed after the coming into force of 
. the Limitation Act, 1963, s. 5 would be available to the applicant and if he· 
can show that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within 
the time limit of 60 days prescribed in sub-s. (4) of s. 417, the application 
would not be barred and despite the expiration of the time limit of sixty days, 
the High Court would have tJ.e power to entertain it. [265B-C] 
(2) Since under the Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5 is specifically made applicable 
by s. 29(2) it could be availed of for the purpose of extending the period of 
limitation prescribed by a special or local law if the applicant can show that 
he had sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the period of 
limitation 
It is only if the special or local law expressly excludes the applka· 
bility of s. 5 that it stands displaced. 
Section 29(2) (b) of the I.imitation Act, 
1908 specifically excluded the applicability of s. 5 while s. 29 (2) of the 1961 
Act in a clear and unambiguous terms provides for applicability of·s. 5. [264F, El 
Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 260, explained. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petitions for Special leave 
to appeal (Crl) Nos. 918-919 of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order crated the 30th May, 1975 of the 
1.-
High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1971. 
G 
Frank Anthony and K. C. Dua, for the petitioner (In S.L.P. 918/ 
• 
75) 
C. L. Sahu, for the petitioner (In S.L.P. 919 /75) 
B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for respondent (In both the 
petitions) 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J. There are two special leave petitions which are 
being disposed of by us by judgment after he•aring both sides. 
There 
J 
• 
MANGU RAM v. MUNIC. CORP. (Bhagwati, J.) 
261 
.is only one question of law which a.rises for determ!nation and. ~ince 
.it lies in a very narrow compass and 1s concluded agamst the petitioner 
by the language of the new statutory eaactment in s. 29 ( 2) of the 
Limitation Act, 1963, we thought that it would be a futile exercis~ to 
grant special leave and then hear the appeals and hence we decided 
to hear these two special leave petitions after issuing notice to the 
respondents so that the question of law arisin~ for consideration can 
be finally determined by _a pronounc~ment of this Court. 
The petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 918 of 1975, herein-
after referred to as Mangu Ram, was at all material times a partner 
in the firm of M/s Ram Pershad Gondamal, which is the petitioner in 
Special Leave Petition No. 919 of 1975. 
The firm of Ml Ram Per-
shad G:mdamal owned a shop in Kharibaoli, Delhi where it soad inter 
alia Phcul Guiab. 
On 8th August, 1969, the Food Inspector of the 
Municipal Corporatio\1 of Delhi purchased two samples 
of Phool 
Guiab from the shop of the.firm of M/s Ram Pershad Gondamal for 
.analysis after complying with the procedure prescribed by law and each 
sample was divided into three parts, out of which one part was. sent 
to the Public Analyst for analysis, the other was retained by the Food 
Inspector and the third was handed over to Mangu Ram who sold the 
samples on behalf of the firm of M/s Ram Pershad Gondamal. 
The 
first sample was marked 0. P. K. 169 and the second . was 
marke,! 
0. P. K. 170. It was found from the report of the analysis made 
by the Public Analyst that both samples 0. P. K. 169 and 0. P. K. 170 
were adulterated and hence the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.