Limitation Act, 1908 [IX of 1908]
Section-5
Appeal is filed four years nine months after date of the date judgment—In the application it is specifically stated that a salish was held between the parties where it was settled that the complainant will withdraw the case and the accused petitioner did not go to the court for the purpose and on that belief the petitioner did not go to the court—Held : To satisfy about the statements made in the petitioner under section of the Limitation Act. the learned Judge could examine the petitioner or the complainant or any saliser about the matter —we think that the accused petitioner may be given a chance to scrutinise his conviction and sentence after admitting his appeal and we also hold that ends of justice will be meet if we allowed the accused petitioner given such chance.
Abdul Mannan Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-270
Section-5
Condonation of delay – satisfactory grounds the 1649 days delay – It appears that the appellant petitioner has absent in the trial on the ground that he was not aware of the case- he did not see the notification in the newspaper and that no warrant of proclamation and attachment was sered or executed in the village address of the petitioner- Held: I am of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds preventing the appellant petitioner from filing the appeal in time and that the petitioner had no willful neglect or laches in the matter. I find that there are satisfactory grounds present in the case for condemning the delay.
Rahmat Ali Vs. The State 4 BLT (HCD)-124
Section-5
Delay of 1930 days in Preferring the appeal and the delay was caused due to serious illness of the Petitioner- the trial of the case in absentia-1 am of the opinion that the delay of 1930 days in Preferring the appeal has been explained Properly and in that view of the matter, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned to enable the Petitioner to get a chance of getting the appeal heard and disposed of on merit in accordance with Law.
Abu Ali Chowdhury Vs. The State 5 BLT (HCD)-3
Section-5
The law of limitation is to be applied strictly in special cases under special laws, convict is tried under the Special law, prescribes a special period of limitation appeal against an order or judgment Special Tribunal or Tribunal or a Bishesh Adalat, as the case may be, in view of 29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 cannot be applied to exclude the prescribed by the said Special proceedings under special law must reach the appellate Court in order to prevent their being time-barred. A ‘special law’ means a law enacted for special circumstances, in contradiction to general rules of the law laid down applicable generally to all cases with the general law deals. If a convict is sentenced to imprisonment for life in proceedings special law his appeal will be dismissed if, the appeal is delayed by one day.
Ayar @ Ayaruddin & Ors Vs. The State 12 BLT (HCD)-434
Section- 5
Delay of 234 days in Preferring the Original; Conviction under Section 6(5) of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, I. Annexure A being an affidavit dated 25.01.2006 Sworn by wife of Petitioner, Disclosing fact of compromise- Held; This court is thus inclined to consider the prayer condonation of the delay favorable special view of the matter that between the parties still subsists maintain the above relations in tact impugned order as to rejection of appeal and refusal of the condonation calls for interferes.
Abdul Hakim Talukder Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD) 252
Section 5
In criminal case there is no question of condonation of delay as the period for avoiding apprehension is never curtailed from the sentence or like civil suits a right accused to the accused that if he avoid the sentence for certain period then he will not require to serve his sentence, period for avoiding arrest after conviction is not deducted from sentence. A convict whenever he/she apprehended sentence will run from the date of such apprehension. The court is to see whether there is satisfactory explanation for not preferring the appeal or revision in proper time. It might be in the appeal the accused may be acquitted. Appeal is the legitimate right of a convict; such right should not be withdrawn merely on the ground of limitation.
Mohammad Ullah (Driver) Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)-96
Section-5
Delay of 5187 days -the Petitioner was unaware about the case, he came to know of the proceeding when he was arrested on B8.7.2005 -the F.I.R. was lodged on 1.10.90 and charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner on 23.11.1990 and that the investigating officer did not take any step to apprehend the accused Petitioner -accused Petitioner preferred the appeal from jail -Appeal is the legitimate right of a convict such right should not be withdrawn merely on the ground of limitation -Delay is condoned.
Mohammad Ullah (Driver) Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)-96
Section-5 read with Article-157
If an appeal against an order of acquittal is filed by the Government either before the High Court Division or the Court of Session beyond the period as provides in Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, Then in such a case an application seeking condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is very much entertainable if the Court is satisfied with the explanation offered as to how delay occurred, then is quite competent to condone the delay.
Dr. M. A. Mazed & Ors Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 12 BLT (AD)-154
Article 92
The Signature and thumb impression in the Solenama are forged- When would Limitation begin to run- the Period of Limitation will run from the date of the knowledge of the forgery of the solenama.
K. Khatun & Ors Vs. H. Biswas & Ors. 4 BLT (HCD)-126.