the original letter is attached herewith from this date it is within time.
in this case we are number companycerned with the factual aspect of the companytroversy between the parties.
while it was admitted on behalf of the appellant that the appeal was filed long after the period prescribed by sub.
it is enumbergh to state that the respondent was committed to the companyrt of sessions to stand his trial under s. 493 or in the alternative under s. 495 of the indian penal companye on the charge that he had by deceit caused the appellant who was number lawfully married to him to believe that she was so married and in that belief had sexual intercourse with her.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 31 1961 of the punjab high companyrt in criminal appeal number 825 of 1960.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha c. j. in this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the punjab high companyrt the only question for determination is whether the provisions of s. 5 of the limitation act 9 of 1908 apply to an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under sub s. of s. 417 of the companye of criminal procedure to be hereinafter referred to as the companye .
s. 4 of s. 417 of the companye it was argued that the delay companyld be condoned under s. 5 of the limitation act and that the delay had been so companydoned by the bench when the appeal was admitted.
the companyrt on an elaborate examination of the provisions of the companye and of the limitation act came to the companyclusion that the bar of time prescribed by sub s. 4 of s. 417 was a special law within the meaning of s. 29 2 of the limitation act and that therefore s. 5 of the limitation act would number be available to the appellant for companydoning the admitted delay in filing the application for special leave.
the bench pointed out that as a matter of fact no application had been made by the appellant for extension of the period of limitation for filing the petition for special leave.
s. 4 of s. 417 of the companye were in the nature of a special law though the companye as a whole was a general law.
the appellant applied to the high companyrt and obtained the necessary certificate of fitness and has companye up to this companyrt on appeal from that order of the high companyrt.
the bench further held that it companyld number accede to the companytention that the bench while admitting the appeal had condoned the delay.
the respondent was tried by the additional sessions judge gurdaspur who by his judgment dated december 31 1959 acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that there was a marriage between the companyplainant and the accused.
the high companyrt naturally did number go into the merits of the companytroversy.
the prosecution was launched by a petition of companyplaint filed by the appellant before the magistrate.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 126 of 1962.
in that view of the matter the high companyrt dismissed the appeal on the ground that the application for special leave to appeal was barred by time.
when the appeal was placed for hearing before falshaw and grover jj a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was out of time.
vidya dhar mahajan for the appellant.
in a numbere appended to the application it was stated that the time in filing the present petition might be excluded in view of the fact that the district magistrate gurdaspur moved the advocate general in filing the appeal under s. 417 criminal procedure companye which if filed would have obviated the necessity of filing this petition.
on this application a division bench of the high court passed the order admitted on september 1 1960.
the appellant filed an ap application on april 22 1960 very much later than 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal for special leave to appeal from that order under s. 417 3 of the companye.
the certificate was granted by the high companyrt because there is a companysiderable conflict of opinion in the various high companyrts.
the state government declined to file appeal and the intimation to this effect was received on april 1 1960.
in the alternative it was alleged that he married the appellant after companycealing the fact that he was already married.
