UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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