Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (‘SC’) in its recent judgment titled Mohd Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence[i]*, *has held that delays in filing appeals against acquittal under s. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) can be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’). This judgement analysed the applicability of s. 5 of the Limitation Act to special laws and compared it with the Limitation Act, 1908 (‘Old Act’).
Brief Facts
The Appellant, along with three others, was acquitted by the Trial Court under s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, in 2012.
Subsequently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’) filed an appeal and a delay condonation application in the Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) in 2013, which was allowed by the DHC.
The Appellant moved an application under s. 482 of the CrPC for recalling the said order of the DHC contending that s. 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply as s. 378(5) of the CrPC does not provide for condonation of delay.
DHC subsequently dismissed the application, and the appellant approached the SC under special leave.
Held
·The SC dismissed the application, holding that the delay in filing an appeal under s. 378 of CrPC could be condoned by application of s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
The SC analysed its judgment in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh[ii], relied upon by the appellant and observed that it dealt with the Old Act, and therefore can have no application in cases governed by the Limitation Act (Observed in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi[iii] )
The SC further observed that s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act is worded differently than s. 29(2) of the Old Act, and now s. 5 of the Limitation Act applies to special laws unless it is expressly excluded by such special law.
The SC observed that since s. 378 of CrPC does not have any exclusionary provision, the benefit of s. 5 r.w. s.2 & s.3 of the Limitation Act can be availed.
Analysis
The SC's judgment offers a significant precedent, allowing relaxation for not just the DRI but potentially all prosecutorial authorities in filing statutory appeals beyond the period prescribed under the CrPC. This ruling underlines that a limited delay does not preclude such authorities from appealing against an acquittal, given that the conditions for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act are met. This development broadens the judicial approach to the interpretation of the Limitation Act in conjunction with the CrPC, providing a more forgiving framework for appeals, particularly in cases involving significant public or governmental interests.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 162
[ii] (1964) 4 SCR 982
[iii] (1976) 1 SCC 392
Authored by Aditya Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.