Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 – Limitation Act, 1963; Sections 2,3,5 ,29– The benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal – Under Section 378 of the new CrPC read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 though a limitation is prescribed, yet Section 29(2) of 1963 Act, does not exclude the application of Section 5. (Para 11)
Limitation Act, 1963; Sections 2,3,5, 29 – Where a special law prescribes a period of limitation, Section 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. (Para 10)
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Section 81 – Limitation Act, 1963; Sections 2,3,5, 29- The election statute thus expressly bars filing of an election petition beyond 45 days. The language of the statute, leaves no ambiguity in this regard. “The High Court shall dismiss an election petition”, is the language given in the statute. Simply put the Court has no choice but to dismiss an election petition, which is filed beyond a period of 45 days. There is no scope for condoning the delay in an election matter – Referred to Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [AIR 1974 SC 480]. (Para 10)