No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

Section 5 of Limitation Act Applicable in Appeals Against Acquittal Under Section 378 of CrPC: Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Condonation of Delay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. vs. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence, has upheld the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale delivered the judgment on February 20, 2024.

Brief on Legal Point: The judgment revolved around the critical legal question of whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC, especially in the context of condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Facts and Issues: The appellant, Mohd Abaad Ali, was acquitted in a case under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an appeal against this acquittal, which was delayed by 72 days. The High Court had allowed the condonation of delay, which was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not apply to appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC.

Court Assessment and Decision: The Supreme Court, after a detailed assessment, held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC, unless expressly excluded by the statute. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh and Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, emphasizing the differences in the wording of the old and new Limitation Acts. The Court observed that the 1963 Act makes Section 5 applicable even in special laws prescribing limitation, unless expressly excluded.

The Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the delay condonation granted by the High Court, affirming the validity of the appeal against acquittal filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The interim order was vacated, and the matter was directed to continue in the Delhi High Court.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2024.

Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. vs. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence

Similar News