LexMOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 638 : 2024 INSC 125 Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence (Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2024) 20 February 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 – Appellant herein faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant moved u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. on the grounds that s.5 of the Limitation Act would not apply in case of an appeal against acquittal since the period of filing an appeal against acquittal, has been prescribed u/s. 378(5) of CrPC itself, where there is no provision for condonation of delay – Propriety: Held: There is no doubt that where a special law prescribes a period of limitation, s.5 of the Limitation Act would have no application, subject only to the language used in the special statute – The language prescribing a period of limitation is an important factor as well – In the instant case, there is no such exclusionary provision u/s. 378 of CrPC, or at any other place in the Code – The benefit of s.5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can therefore be availed in an appeal against acquittal – There is no force in the contentions raised by the appellants as regards the non-application of s.5 of the Limitation Act in the present case. [Para 11] Case Law Cited Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh [1964] 4 SCR 982; Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [1976] 2 SCR 260 : (1976) 1 SCC 392 – referred to. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 639 Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, [1974] 3 SCR 31 : AIR 1974 SC 480; Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar, [2004] 2 SCR 826 : 2004 (4) SCC 252 – held inapplicable. Anjanabai v. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe ILR (1961) Bom 135 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Exclusionary provision; Benefit of s. 5 of Limitation Act in appeal against acquittal. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMA No. 13802 of 2016 and CRLLP No. 330 of 2013 Appearances for Parties Md. Shahid Anwar, Vijay Agarwal, Chetan, Mukul, Advs. for the Appellants. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Priyanka Das, Nachiketa Joshi, Mrs. Merusagar Samantaray, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Leave granted. 1. The present appellant was one of the four accused in a case instituted, inter-alia under Section 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. He faced trial (S.C. No. 33 of 2009) where he was ultimately acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi vide order dated 06.10.2012. 640 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 2. Against the order of acquittal, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an appeal before the High Court on 27.06.2013. That appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of CrPC was accompanied by a delay condonation application, since the appeal was belated by 72 days. The delay condonation application was allowed by the Delhi High Court on 18.05.2016. 3. An application was then moved by the present appellant before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC for recalling of the said order on grounds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply in case of an appeal against acquittal since the period of filing an appeal against acquittal, has been prescribed under Section 378(5) of CrPC itself, where there is no provision for condonation of delay. By order dated 20.01.2017 the Delhi High Court nonetheless dismissed the application for recall filed by the appellant, although no reasons were assigned while dismissing the application under Section 482. 4. This order has been challenged before us on the grounds that the High Court has committed a patent error in allowing the belated appeal against acquittal filed by public servant as t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.