Title: MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR VDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 2052 OF 2017)
Dated on: 20.2.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA & JUSTICE PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
The Supreme Court decision was delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale in a criminal appeal filed by the appellants, who were acquitted of charges under the Customs Act of 1962 by the trial court but faced a belated appeal by the respondent, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, challenging their acquittal.
Brief Facts
In the present case the appellant found himself in a legal battle after being acquitted in a case brought under Section 135(1)(b) (offenses related to evasion of duty or prohibitions) of the Customs Act, 1962. After being exonerated by the Additional Sessions Judge, North, Delhi, on October 6, 2012, the appellant’s reprieve was brief. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, displeased with the verdict, filed an appeal against the acquittal on June 27, 2013. However, this appeal was plagued by a 72-day delay, causing the appellant to seek condonation for the delay, which the Delhi High Court approved on May 18, 2016. Resilient, the appellant filed a legal challenge under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to have the ruling recalled. His argument was based on the claim that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to appeals against acquittals, citing the self-contained nature of Section 378(5) of the CrPC, which defines the term for filing such appeals. Despite this plea, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application summarily on January 20, 2017, without stating any substantive reasons.
Court analysis
The Supreme Court considered the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which deals with the extending of the stipulated term in specific circumstances) to appeals against acquittals under Section 378 of the CrPC. The Court contrasted the precedent established in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh from subsequent decisions such as Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Court noted that Section 5 applies under the present CrPC and the Limitation Act of 1963, unless expressly excluded by the special statute. It also dismissed arguments based on instances such as Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain and Mishra and Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar which exclusively dealt with s.5 ‘s applicability.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
