Judgment:
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) The question whether these four appeals were filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi within time, falls for consideration. As this is a common question, this judgment disposes of all the said four appeals.
(2) The respondents against whom the appeals were admitted are M/s Mugal Restaurant, A-30, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi and its Manager ShriSunil Kumar. Separate judgments in the four cases acquitting these two respondents and Smt. Lajwanti, stated to be the partner of the restaurant, were announced on 31st May, 1978. In all the four cases, the Corporation, who was the complainant, applied for certified copies on the 17th August, 1978. The copies were ready on 24th August, 1978. The appeals were filed on 30th November, 1978. It is apparent that the appeals were filed beyond the period of sixty days but within six months of the order of acquittal after deducting the period spent in obtaining the certified copies. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the relevant time the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation') was of the view that under Sub-section 5 of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applications seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code could be filed within six months from the order of acquittal. That sub-section 5 of Section 378 reads as follows:
'5.No application under Sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months where the complainant is a public servant and 60 days in every other case computed from the date of that order of acquittal.'
(3) It is further apparent from the record that the Corporation was the complainant in these four cases; not only the title of the cases in the lower court shows it but also in the impugned judgments it has been stated that 'Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint against the three accused named above under Section 461 read with Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957......'. As noticed above the appeal have also been filed on behalf of the Corporation. These have been filed through counsel Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal, Advocate.
(4) In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S. K. Join & others, 1984 (2) Fac 289, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a public servant. It was observed that it was a question of fact as to who was the complainant in a particular case. It was further held that the Corporation not being a public servant, could only file the application seeking leave to appeal within sixty days of the order of acquittal. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhani Ram & another, (Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 1978 with connected appeals), decided on September 25, 1987, this Court following the law laid by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal and another, 1973 Fac 266, held that even if the complaint had been filed by and in the name of a person authorised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it was the Corporation who was the complainant. Thus in view of the fact that the present applications seeking leave to appeal were filed by and on behalf of the Corporation, these applications should have been filed within sixty days of the impugned order. Admittedly these were filed beyond time as provided under Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(5) We hold that the present four appeals are barred by limitation and are liable to be dismissed. We direct accordingly.