Dipti Mookerjee and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 1. this application has been filed under article 227 of the constitution of india for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or an order or direction..........case no. 789 of 2001, whereby under the provisions of section 156(iii) of the code of criminal procedure, complaint petitioner has been referred to the lalpur police station for institution of an fir and for submission of final form after investigation.2. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the whole allegation has been concocted in order to harass the petitioners as there was already an agreement in 1986 and period has already expired and this complaint case has been filed only because of the fact that one kumud kumar jha was appointed as attorney on 10-8-2001, with an allegation of mala fide intention. it is also submitted that already several allegations have been made by petitioners against the officer-in-charge, lalpur police station and as such lalpur police station's officer-in-charge is wholly based with the grievances of the petitioners and against him, a writ is also pending in this court.3. there appears that the c.j.m. ranchi has simply sent the complaint case for institution of the fir and for investigation under section 156(iii) cr. p.c. and it was incumbent upon the investigation officer to investigate the case independently and fairly.4. however, in view of the allegations made as against the officer-in-charge, lalpur police station, he is not required to take up this case for investigation and as such the senior superintendent of police, ranchi is directed to appoint a competent officer of lalpur police station, except the officer-in-charge of that police station for investigation of this case, as directed by the c.j.m. under section 156(iii), cr.p.c. fairly and independently. [5. with this observation, this application is disposed of.