Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.37 seconds)Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 12 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Haru Das Gupta vs State Of West Bengal on 1 February, 1972
Similar contention was considered by this Court in the
case of Haru Das Gupta vs. State of West Bengal (1972) 1
SCC 639 wherein it was held that the rule is well
established that where a particular time is given from a
certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on
that day is to be excluded; the effect of defining period
from such a day until such a day within which an act is to
be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last
day. In the context of that case, the Court held that in
computing the period of three months from the date of
detention, which was February 5th, 1971, before the
expiration of which the order or decision for confirming the
detention order and continuing the detention thereunder had
to be made, the date of the commencement of detention,
namely, February 5th has to be excluded; so done, the order
of confirmation dated May 5th, 1971 was made before the
expiration of the period of three months from the date of
detention. The Court held that there is no reason why the
aforesaid rule of construction followed consistently and for
so long should not be applied. For the aforesaid principle
Court referred to the principle followed in English Courts.
The relevant discussion is hereunder :- "These decisions
show that courts have drawn a distinction between a term
created within which an act may be done and a time limited
for the doing of an act. The rule is well established that
where a particular time is given from a certain date within
which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be
excluded.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 9 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1