CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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

Latest Legal News