1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 14 of 2005. Date of Decision: September 09, 2008. ________________________________________________________ Jai Krishan. Petitioner. Versus Satish Kumar and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Yudhvir Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 & 3. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for respondent No.4. ________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral). This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner to quash and set-aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in case No.6/10 of 2001, decided on 15.2.2005 dismissing his appeal preferred under Section 67 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, in short ‘the Act’, precisely on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner was barred by limitation and Section 5 of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Limitation Act to condone the delay was held not applicable by virtue of Section 60(4) of the Act. Heard and gone through the record. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted by Gram Panchayat Pantehra on 22.09.1999 to pay a fine of Rs.5/- for violating the terms and conditions of the compromise, against which the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.4.2001, under Section 67 of the Act, which reads as under:- “67. Appeal:- Any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a Bench of the Gram Panchayat may appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of such order or decree to the Judicial Magistrate/ Sub- Judge in respect of any case or suit, as the case may be, and the Collector concerned in respect of any proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953.” The appeal preferred by the present petitioner was beyond the period of limitation, as such, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay was also moved. The learned appellate court (ACJM) dismissed the appeal on the ground that 3 Limitation Act does not apply by virtue of Section 60(4) of the Act, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable. The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present petition, on the ground that the provision of Section 67 of the Act does not in any manner provide that the Judicial Magistrate would follow the procedure under Section 60(4) of the Act, which is otherwise applicable to the proceedings being held before the Gram Panchayat. In the instant case, the whole controversy revolves around the application of Limitation Act and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the appellate court. Section 60(4) of the Act, which reads as under:- “60. Procedure and power to ascertain truth:- (1) to (3)……….. (4) The Gram Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under this Act. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to any suit, case or proceedings before a Gram Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed.” Section 60 deals with the power and procedure of the Gram Panchayat to ascertaining the truth and sub section (4) of Section 60 of 4 the Act quoted above, inter alia specifically excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the proceedings before the Gram Panchayat and not to the appeal filed under Section 67 of the Act. The Act does not specifically exclude the application of Limitation Act to such appeals, therefore, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Sections 4 and 25 both inclusive shall apply to the appeal only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the appeals filed under Section 67 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.2.2005, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the learned appellate court below to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act appended with the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, in accordance with law and hear the appeal on its merits, if the appellate courts finds a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 15.10.2008. Record of the appellate court be returned forthwith. September 09,2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge. 5