Semantic Analysis by spaCy
State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.
Decided On : Apr-05-1961
Court : Gujarat
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 417(3', (int) 1 => 'Section 417', (int) 2 => 'Section 4', (int) 3 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 5', (int) 5 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 4', (int) 7 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 5', (int) 9 => 'Section 29', (int) 10 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22', (int) 13 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 14 => 'Section 5', (int) 15 => 'Section 5', (int) 16 => 'the Indian Limitation Act' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indian' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the High Court', (int) 1 => 'the High Court', (int) 2 => 'the High Court', (int) 3 => 'the High Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'The High Court', (int) 6 => 'Sections 3,', (int) 7 => 'State' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the period of', (int) 1 => '60 days', (int) 2 => '78 days', (int) 3 => '1st May, 1960', (int) 4 => '12th June, 1960', (int) 5 => 'May', (int) 6 => '4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'four', (int) 1 => '4', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '18 and 22', (int) 4 => 'four', (int) 5 => '4.8.60' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cri Pro', (int) 1 => 'Yeshvantrao' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Anjanabai' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '738950', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'State', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1961-04-05', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Raju and; Mehta, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Raju, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The High Court was therefore open during the vacation for filing criminal cases and applications, and Section 4 of; the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. Section 5 of the Indian. Limitation Act would also not apply, because Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act provides as under:..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation, prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special of local law-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is therefore clear that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, only the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 9 to. 18 and 22 would apply, but the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 would not apply. This is also the view taken in Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao : AIR1961Bom154 . The delay cannot, therefore, be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The applications for condoning delay are, therefore, rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The applications for special leave to appeal filed by the Municipality are therefore rejected as being barred by limitation. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. All these matters are rejected as being time barred and it is not therefore necessary to decide them on merits.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '738950' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 417(3', (int) 1 => 'Section 417', (int) 2 => 'Section 4', (int) 3 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 5', (int) 5 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 4', (int) 7 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 5', (int) 9 => 'Section 29', (int) 10 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22', (int) 13 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 14 => 'Section 5', (int) 15 => 'Section 5', (int) 16 => 'the Indian Limitation Act' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indian' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the High Court', (int) 1 => 'the High Court', (int) 2 => 'the High Court', (int) 3 => 'the High Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'The High Court', (int) 6 => 'Sections 3,', (int) 7 => 'State' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the period of', (int) 1 => '60 days', (int) 2 => '78 days', (int) 3 => '1st May, 1960', (int) 4 => '12th June, 1960', (int) 5 => 'May', (int) 6 => '4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'four', (int) 1 => '4', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '18 and 22', (int) 4 => 'four', (int) 5 => '4.8.60' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cri Pro', (int) 1 => 'Yeshvantrao' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Anjanabai' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '738950', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'State', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1961-04-05', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Raju and; Mehta, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Raju, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The High Court was therefore open during the vacation for filing criminal cases and applications, and Section 4 of; the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. Section 5 of the Indian. Limitation Act would also not apply, because Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act provides as under:..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation, prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special of local law-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is therefore clear that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, only the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 9 to. 18 and 22 would apply, but the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 would not apply. This is also the view taken in Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao : AIR1961Bom154 . The delay cannot, therefore, be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The applications for condoning delay are, therefore, rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The applications for special leave to appeal filed by the Municipality are therefore rejected as being barred by limitation. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. All these matters are rejected as being time barred and it is not therefore necessary to decide them on merits.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '738950' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 417(3', (int) 1 => 'Section 417', (int) 2 => 'Section 4', (int) 3 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 5', (int) 5 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 4', (int) 7 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 5', (int) 9 => 'Section 29', (int) 10 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22', (int) 13 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 14 => 'Section 5', (int) 15 => 'Section 5', (int) 16 => 'the Indian Limitation Act' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indian' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the High Court', (int) 1 => 'the High Court', (int) 2 => 'the High Court', (int) 3 => 'the High Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'The High Court', (int) 6 => 'Sections 3,', (int) 7 => 'State' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the period of', (int) 1 => '60 days', (int) 2 => '78 days', (int) 3 => '1st May, 1960', (int) 4 => '12th June, 1960', (int) 5 => 'May', (int) 6 => '4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'four', (int) 1 => '4', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '18 and 22', (int) 4 => 'four', (int) 5 => '4.8.60' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cri Pro', (int) 1 => 'Yeshvantrao' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Anjanabai' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '738950', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'State', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1961-04-05', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Raju and; Mehta, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Raju, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The High Court was therefore open during the vacation for filing criminal cases and applications, and Section 4 of; the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. Section 5 of the Indian. Limitation Act would also not apply, because Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act provides as under:..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation, prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special of local law-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is therefore clear that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, only the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 9 to. 18 and 22 would apply, but the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 would not apply. This is also the view taken in Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao : AIR1961Bom154 . The delay cannot, therefore, be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The applications for condoning delay are, therefore, rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The applications for special leave to appeal filed by the Municipality are therefore rejected as being barred by limitation. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. All these matters are rejected as being time barred and it is not therefore necessary to decide them on merits.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '738950' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 417(3', (int) 1 => 'Section 417', (int) 2 => 'Section 4', (int) 3 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 5', (int) 5 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 4', (int) 7 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 8 => 'Section 5', (int) 9 => 'Section 29', (int) 10 => 'the Indian Limitation Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22', (int) 13 => 'the Limitation Act', (int) 14 => 'Section 5', (int) 15 => 'Section 5', (int) 16 => 'the Indian Limitation Act' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Indian' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the High Court', (int) 1 => 'the High Court', (int) 2 => 'the High Court', (int) 3 => 'the High Court', (int) 4 => 'the High Court', (int) 5 => 'The High Court', (int) 6 => 'Sections 3,', (int) 7 => 'State' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the period of', (int) 1 => '60 days', (int) 2 => '78 days', (int) 3 => '1st May, 1960', (int) 4 => '12th June, 1960', (int) 5 => 'May', (int) 6 => '4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'four', (int) 1 => '4', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '18 and 22', (int) 4 => 'four', (int) 5 => '4.8.60' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Cri Pro', (int) 1 => 'Yeshvantrao' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Anjanabai' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '738950', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'State', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'State Vs. Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Gujarat', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1961-04-05', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Raju and; Mehta, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Raju, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. (After stating file facts, the judgment proceeds as under:)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal is to be filed within the period of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal. The four applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal were filed after the expiration of 78 days from the date of life orders of acquittal, and prima facie they are barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cri Pro. Code. But, the learned Counsel for the Municipality contends that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the delay, if any, should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the High Court was closed for vacation from 1st May, 1960, to 12th June, 1960 and that the applications were filed on the clay on which the High Court re-opened. But, the notification announcing the closing of the High Court for the May vacation clearly states that the office of the High Court would remain open for all criminal applications and for urgent civil applications. The High Court was therefore open during the vacation for filing criminal cases and applications, and Section 4 of; the Indian Limitation Act would not apply. Section 5 of the Indian. Limitation Act would also not apply, because Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act provides as under:..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation, prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special of local law-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is therefore clear that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, only the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 9 to. 18 and 22 would apply, but the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 would not apply. This is also the view taken in Anjanabai v. Yeshvantrao : AIR1961Bom154 . The delay cannot, therefore, be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The applications for condoning delay are, therefore, rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The applications for special leave to appeal filed by the Municipality are therefore rejected as being barred by limitation. The four appeals filed by the State on 4.8.60 against the order of acquittal are also clearly barred by limitation, as they were filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. All these matters are rejected as being time barred and it is not therefore necessary to decide them on merits.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1962CriLJ328; (1961)GLR623', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bai Rani W/O Hira Jivan and anr.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '738950' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 417(3, Section 417, Section 4, the Indian Limitation Act, Section 5, the Limitation Act, Section 4, the Indian Limitation Act, Section 5, Section 29, the Indian Limitation Act, Section 3, Section 4, Section 9 to 18 and Section 22, the Limitation Act, Section 5, Section 5, the Indian Limitation Act
NORP: J.1, Indian
ORG: the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, The High Court, Sections 3,, State
DATE: the period of, 60 days, 78 days, 1st May, 1960, 12th June, 1960, May, 4
CARDINAL: four, 4, 9, 18 and 22, four, 4.8.60
PERSON: Cri Pro, Yeshvantrao
GPE: Counsel, Anjanabai
ORDINAL: first, first