Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hirenkumar Mansangbhai Chauhan, and respondent no.2 are husband and wife. The wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No.5183 of 2024 seeking maintenance. The trial court partly allowed the application for interim maintenance vide order dated 15.02.2025. Aggrieved, the wife sought to appeal before the Sessions Court but there was a delay of 241 days. She filed Cr.M.A. No.7868 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad, condoned the delay by order dated 30.01.2026. The husband challenged this order by filing a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the delay condonation order and stay of Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2026. The High Court examined the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to criminal appeals under Section 29(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It noted that Section 29(2) CrPC provides a limitation period of 30 days for appeals and does not incorporate Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court relied on the principle that where a special statute prescribes a limitation period, the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply unless expressly incorporated. The Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 30 days. The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 and dismissed the delay condonation application. It clarified that the wife may pursue other remedies available under law, such as filing a revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal - Limitation - Section 29(2) CrPC - Section 5 Limitation Act - The issue was whether the Sessions Court could condone delay beyond 30 days in a criminal appeal under Section 29(2) CrPC. The High Court held that Section 29(2) CrPC provides a limitation period of 30 days and does not incorporate Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to condone a delay of 241 days. The impugned order condoning delay was quashed and set aside. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Delay Condonation - The Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to condone delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 29(2) CrPC. The remedy of the respondent wife lies in filing a revision under Section 397 CrPC or approaching the appropriate forum. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Court had jurisdiction to condone delay of 241 days in filing a criminal appeal under Section 29(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Cr.M.A. No.7868 of 2025 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the delay condonation application stands dismissed. The respondent wife is at liberty to avail other remedies available under law.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5 not applicable to criminal appeals under CrPC Section 29(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973 Section 29(2) provides for appeal period of 30 days
- delay condonation beyond 30 days is without jurisdiction
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to condone delay beyond statutory period
