STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus MAHARAJ NARAIN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 30-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OJ< UTT AR PRADESH 
v. 
MAHARAJ NARAIN AND OTHERS 
January 30, .1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH Al'D K. S. HEGDE, JJ.j 
Limitation ACI, 1908, .1. 12(2)-"time rtquirite" for obtaining copy 
of order appealed fro1n-n1eaning of. 
The appellanl Slate filed an appeal in the High Court on March 29, 
1963 against the order made by the trial court on November 10, 1962 
acquitting the 
rc~pondents. According to the information contained in 
the copy of the order produced along w1lh the Memorandum of Appeal. 
1he appeal was filed wilhin time. 
It showed Iha! the copy was applied 
for on Novombcr 15. 1962 and it was ready on January 3. 1963. It was 
contended on behalf of the respondents 1ha1 the appeal was out of time 
in view of the fact that 1he appellant had applied for and obtained two 
other copies of the orJcr appealed from and i'f time was calculated on the 
basis o[ thoc;c copies the appeal 
v. a" 
beyond 
time. 
In 
addition 
10 
the copy referred 10 earlier. the app<:llant had applied for another copy of 
the order appealed fron1 on December 3, 196:!. and that copy was ready 
for delivery on December 20, 1962. 
The appellant also applied for yel 
another copy of rhc same order on Dcrcmbcr 21, 1962 and that copy was 
made ready on the same day. 
II was not disputed lba1 if the period of 
limitation was con1puted on the basis of the t\l.'O later copies, the appeal 
was barred hy limitation. 
The High Court accepted the 
respondent's 
contention and dismissed the appeal. 
On appeal to this Courl. 
HELD : That lbc decision of 1he High Court under apoeal did not 
Jay down the law correctly. 
The expression 'time requisite' in s. 12(2) of the Limitation Act can· 
nol be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of the order. 
Whal is deduc1ible under s. 12(2) is not the minimum 
F 
time within which a copy of lbc order appealed against could have been 
obtained. 
It must be remembered that s. 12(2) e!llarges tho period of 
limitation proscribed under entry 157 of Schedule I. That s~tion per-
mits the appellant 10 deducl from the time ta.ken for filing lbe appeal. the 
time required for obtaining lhe copy of the order appealed from and not 
any lesser period "'·hich might hav~ been occupied if th~ application for 
copy had been filed al some 01hcr date. 
That section lays no obligation 
on the appellant 10 be prompt in his application for a copy of the order. 
G 
A plain reading of s. 12(2) shows 1ha1 in computing the peiiod of Iimi1a-
1ion prescribed for an appeal. the day on which the judgment or order 
complained of \Vas pronounced and the time taken by the court to make 
available the copy applied for. have lo be excluded. There is no justifi-
cation for restricting the scope of 1ha1 provision. [844 E-HJ 
Matltek and others v. Siter Moltai11111ad, A.l.R. 1935, Lah. 682; dis-
approved. 
H 
Pra111atlta Nat/1 Rov v. Lee, 49 I.A. 307 and /, N. Surry v. 
T. S. 
Clietlyar, 55 I.A. 161; distinguished. 
... 
U.P. STATE v. MAHARAJ NARAIN (Hegde, ].) 
843 
A 
Panjam Y. Trimala Reddy, I.LR. 57 
Mad. 560; Kunju Kesavan v. 
M. M. Philip, A.LR. 1953 T.C. 552; B. Govind Raj Sewak Singh and Anr. 
v. Behuti Narain Singh. A.LR. 1950, All. 486 and K. U. Singh v. M. R. 
Kachhi, A.LR. 1960 M.P. 140; referred to. 
CB'IMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C: !minal Appeal No. 
122 of 1965. 
B 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December l, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 
785 of 1963. 
0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
!. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. In this appeal by certificate, the only question that 
arises for decision is as to the true scope of the expression "time 
requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order 
appealed from" found in sub-s. 2 cf s. 12 of the Indian Limitation 
Act 1908 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The 
said question arose for decision under the following circumstan-
ces: The respondents were tried for various offences before the 
learned assistant sessions judge, Farrukhabad. The said learned 
judge acquitted them. 
Against the order of acquittal the State 
went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. The said 
appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The correct-
ness of that decision is in issue in this appeal. 
Item 157 of the first schedule to the Act prescribes that the 
period of limitation for an appeal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.