1971 (3) TMI 63 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the memorandum of appeals from an order of acquittal were barred by article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963? Held that - Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requires appeal under subsection (3) of section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be filed within 30 days from the date of the grant of special leave. No application for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal was made within 60 days from that order of acquittal. The orders of acquittal were passed on April 4, 1968. The petitions of appeal were presented on July 1, 1968. The appeals were rightly not entertained by the High Court because first there was no application for grant of special leave under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; secondly, the appeals were incompetent without grant of special leave, and, thirdly, these were barred by limitation. An appeal under section 417(3) against acquittal is competent only when there is special leave granted by the High Court. On obtaining special leave the appeal is thereafter filed within 30 days of the grant of leave to escape the mischief of the period of limitation under article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 624B is not such a section which can be said to be conferring a right of appeal. Section 624B only mentions as to the person through whom the appeal is presented. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
- Appeal against orders of acquittal
- Barred by limitation under Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Interpretation of Section 624B of the Companies Act
- Competency of appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Right of appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act

Appeal against orders of acquittal:
The case involved appeals against orders of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in relation to non-compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The High Court at Calcutta held that the appeals were barred by Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as they were presented without the grant of special leave within the prescribed time limit.

Barred by limitation under Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963, mandates that an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be filed within 30 days from the date of the grant of special leave. In this case, no application for special leave was made within 60 days of the order of acquittal. Consequently, the appeals were rightly deemed incompetent and barred by limitation, leading to their dismissal by the High Court.

Interpretation of Section 624B of the Companies Act:
The appellant contended that the appeals were preferred under Section 624B of the Companies Act, 1956, which empowers the Central Government to direct or authorize a person to present an appeal from an order of acquittal. However, the court found this argument unacceptable, clarifying that Section 624B does not confer a right of appeal but merely specifies the authority through which an appeal may be presented.

Competency of appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs appeals in cases of acquittal. The court emphasized that the right to appeal in cases of acquittal is governed by Section 417, which requires the grant of special leave for an appeal to be competent. Without special leave, an appeal against acquittal is not maintainable, as evidenced by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Right of appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act:
The judgment highlighted that Section 483 of the Companies Act confers the right of appeal specifically in matters related to winding up of companies. Appeals under Section 483 are subject to the same conditions as appeals from any order or decision of the court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction. In contrast, Section 624B of the Companies Act does not grant a right of appeal but only specifies the procedure for presenting an appeal.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed as they were found to be incompetent due to the absence of special leave, rendering them barred by limitation and not in compliance with the statutory provisions governing appeals in cases of acquittal. The court underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and requirements for appeals to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

← Previous Next →