Section 14 of Limitation Act not applicable to Criminal Proceedings

Radhe Shyam Khemka (dead) through legal representatives Vs Raju Yadav Alias Ram Kumar (Chhhattisgarh High Court)

In the matter of Sakhichand Sahu and others v. Ishwar Dayal  Sahu and others2, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has clearly held that the period spent in prosecuting an application in revision before the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate cannot be excluded in computing the said period of ninety days, until Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is suitably amended by the Parliament.

Thus, the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is confined to suit and appeal or revision, it cannot be made applicable to criminal proceeding like revision. However, Section 470(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that in computing the period of limitation, the time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall be excluded.

Having noticed the aforesaid legal position, reverting to the facts of the case, respondent No.1 was discharged on 6-6-2011 by the jurisdictional criminal court from the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC against which the original petitioner preferred application for grant of leave to appeal (Cr.M.P.No.459/2013) with a delay of only two years on 2­5-2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition on 26-8-2013 and again the petitioner filed revision on 12-11-2013 which has been dismissed declining to extend the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 finding that the petitioner for the first time filed application for grant of leave to appeal (Cr.M.P.No.459/2013) before this Court with a delay of approximately 2 years with no sufficient reason for delay in filing the same and therefore Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied. In the considered opinion of this Court, firstly, there is delay of approximately two years from 6-6-2011 to 2-5-2013 in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal before this Court filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for which there is no satisfactory explanation offered before the revisional Court in revision and secondly, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to criminal proceeding like revision and the provision contained in Section 470(1) of the CrPC would be applicable. Assuming it otherwise, the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay from 6-6-2011 to 2-5­2013 for more than two years in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal, as no sufficient reason has been assigned for delay of two years in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal questioning the order of discharge of respondent No.1.

The Supreme Court in J. Kumaradasan Nair (supra) has held that the court will not apply the beneficent provisions like Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act in a pedantic manner. It is true that sufficient cause has to be construed liberally, but it should be considered whether the person prosecuting the proceeding is himself negligent or is not acting bona fidely. A careful perusal of the record would show that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any sufficient reason for delay of two years in questioning the order of discharge. As such, the revisional Court is absolutely justified in dismissing the revision and rightly held that sufficient cause has not been shown for delay of two years in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal, as Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in criminal proceeding. I do not find any merit in this petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.