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

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. * Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 639