State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj Narain, AIR 1968 SC 960 | BareLaw
the Limitation Act 1908. In particular, it deals with the interpretation and application of Section 12(2) which is decisive in computing the period of limitation for appeals in legal proceedings.
Background and Facts:
- Respondents were acquitted by an Assistant Sessions Judge Farrukhabad on some charges. The State appealed against this acquittal to Allahabad High Court.
- On account of its limitation having expired, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the state.
- Appeal was filed on March 29, 1963 while order appealed from was pronounced on November 10, 1962. Essential for appeal copy of order was applied for on November 15 and ready by January 3, 1963.
Legal Issues and Observations:
- Main issue involved in this case was whether or not that appeal was barred under Limitation Act.
- The Supreme Court clarified that there is no need for an appellant to apply immediately after pronouncement of judgment for a copy of its order’
- But it said that even if almost till the end of statutory ninety day period necessary before applying for copy appellant waited , there would still be time taken up in obtaining such copies would be deducted from period limited for filing an appeal
- Between the limit acts of nineteen hundred and eight & sixty three respectively there exists a distinction in application as regards section twelve sub section two (12(2)) showing its importance in enlarging periods within which appeals can be brought about
Conclusion:
- Supreme court dismissed state’s appeal as barred by limitation; thus upholding high courts decision. It is considered ‘time requisite’ under Section-12(2)’. This means that they have to be properly required rather than being due to negligent approach on part of counsel representing appellants.
This case helps us understand how Indian courts handle this based on their judicial intuition. This law applies when we are discussing about appeals because you got all your facts right.
