Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 25 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Dr. Z. Kotasek And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 4 May, 1983
As the complaint in the present case was made by the Board, there was no question of previous sanction of the Board, the same view was taken in Z. Kotasek v. State of Bihar [1984] Crl. LJ 683.
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagdish Lal Son Of Radhakishan & Anr on 27 May, 1969
In support of the contention, Shri Bawa placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal AIR 1970 SC 7 ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Amrit Lal [1981] CC Cases 33 (Delhi) ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S.K. Jain [1985] 1 Recent C. R. 403 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhani Ram [1988J 1 Recent C. C. 300 ; all Division Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court. In all these decisions, it was held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a public servant and, thus, the period of limitation within which an appeal could be filed under Section 378(5) of the Code was sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. Shri M.S. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the Board was a juristic person and could only function through the Chairman or Members or officers of the Board. Members, Officers and servants of the Board had been expressly declared to be public servants under Section 50 of the Act, and, thus, the period of limitation should be reckoned to be six months. If this were accepted, then the appeal would be within the period prescribed under the Code. In the alternative, Shri Jain made an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10664 of 1991. It was stated in the application that the Environmental Engineer, Sonepat, apprised the Board about the acquittal of the accused by his letter dated June 21, 1985, forwarding a certified copy of the judgment of acquittal dated June 1, 1985. The District Attorney of the Board examined the case and recommended on July 3, 1985, that an appeal should be filed against the judgment. The member-secretary of the Board agreed with the views of the District Attorney and submitted the file to the Chairman who also agreed with the report of the District Attorney, vide his note dated July 23, 1985. He directed the office to take steps to engage a senior advocate. The relevant papers were collected and the matter was discussed with a senior advocate. The advocate further expressed the view that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was six months, that is, up to December 1, 1985. On the basis of the said advice, the Board, in its meeting dated November 10, 1985, decided to prefer an appeal and, accordingly, the papers were submitted to the advocate on November 26, 1985, and the application for special leave was filed in the High Court on November 29, 1985. Along with the application, an affidavit of Shri E.N. Malik, member-secretary of the Board, with regard to the material facts alleged in the application was also filed. The application has, however, been vehemently opposed mainly on the ground that a careful perusal of various dates mentioned in the application would reveal that the matter was being dealt with leisurely and there was no sense of urgency attached to it at any stage. It was also argued that the affidavit of the advocate who allegedly gave the advice with regard to the period of limitation being six months had not been placed on record.