Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally to prevent meritorious appeals being rejected on technicalities.

Crime No. 633/2021 was registered at Police Station Station Road, Morena, under Sections 3, 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, after a tractor-trolley allegedly carrying 405 litres of kerosene in two drums and a jerry can was seized on 08.10.2021.

The tractor-trolley was confiscated by order dated 19.01.2022. The petitioners initially filed an appeal before the Commissioner on 14.02.2022, within the prescribed period, but it was returned on 12.04.2022 for want of jurisdiction. They thereafter filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge on 23.08.2022 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Sessions Judge, Morena, rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred by order dated 09.02.2023. The petitioners challenged that order under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

They contended that the period during which the appeal remained before the Commissioner should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and that petitioner No. 1, being in custody, could not file an affidavit supporting the condonation application.

Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissing the appeal as time-barred

Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to file a fresh application for condonation of delay, particularly when the initial appeal had been filed before the Commissioner within the prescribed period and petitioner No. 1 was in custody

Whether the period during which the appeal remained pending before the Commissioner could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act prescribes the limitation period for an appeal against an order of confiscation, and the appeal in the present case was admittedly filed beyond that period before the Sessions Court.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown and is to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice and prevent meritorious matters from being rejected on technical grounds.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of time spent prosecuting a proceeding before a court lacking jurisdiction, subject to the statutory requirements.

The Court accepted that the appeal before the Sessions Judge was beyond the limitation period but noted that the petitioners had initially approached the Commissioner within time and that the appeal was returned only because the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

Although the State argued that exclusion of the period spent before the Commissioner would not fully remove the delay and that petitioner No. 2 could have filed the supporting affidavit, the Court emphasized the liberal construction required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It further treated petitioner No. 1’s custody at the time of filing the appeal as a relevant circumstance explaining the absence of his affidavit.

In the interests of substantial justice, the Court considered it appropriate to provide one further opportunity rather than allow the matter to fail on a procedural technicality.

The petitioners were granted 15 days from the date of the order to file a fresh appeal accompanied by a fresh application for condonation of delay. If filed within that period, the Sessions Court was directed to decide the application expeditiously and in accordance with law. The revision was accordingly disposed of.