Bhagwati , J. - (1.) These are two special leave petitions which are being disposed of by us by judgment after hearing both sides. There is only one question of law which arises for determination and since it lies in a very narrow compass and is concluded against the petitioner by the language of the new statutory enactment in Sec. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, we thought that it would be a futile exercise to grant special leave and then hear the appeals and hence we decided to hear these two special leave petitions after issuing notice to the respondents so that the question of law arising for consideration can be finally determined by a pronouncement of this Court.
(2.) The petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 918 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as Mangu Ram, was at all material times a partner in the firm of M/s. Ram Parshad Gondamal, which is the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 919 of 1975. The firm of M/s. Ram Parshad Gondamal owned a shop in Kharibaoli, Delhi where it sold inter alia Phool Gulab. On 8th August, 1969, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased two samples of Phool Gulab from the shop of the firm of M/s. Ram Parshad Gondamal for analysis after complying with the procedure prescribed by law, and each sample was divided into three parts, out of which one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, the other was retained by the Food Inspector and the third was handed over to Mangu Ram who sold the samples on behalf of the firm of M/s. Ram Parshad Gondmal. The first sample was marked O.P.K. 169 and the second was marked O.P.K. 170. It was found from the report of the analysis made by the Public Analyst that both samples O.P.K. 169 and O.P.K. 170 were adulterated and hence the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed two complaints, one in respect of each sample, against Mangu Ram and the firm of M/s Ram Parshad Gondamal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Delhi for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. These two complaints were consolidated and tried together by the learned Judicial Magistrate. During the course of the trial, on an application made by the Mangu Ram and the firm of M/s Ram Parshad Gondamal, one part of each of the two samples lying with them was sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis as required by Section 13, sub-section (2) of the Act. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, analyzed the two samples sent to him and issued a certificate in respect of each of them showing the result of the analysis. The certificate in respect of sample O.P.K. 169 showed the presence of Tartrazine indigo. Carmine which was then a non-permitted Coal Tar dye, but subsequently permitted by reason of amendment of rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, while the certificate in respect of sample O.P.K. 170 revealed the presence of Rhodamine B, which was at all times a non-permitted coal tar dye. The learned Judicial Magistrate, in view of these certificates of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, came to the conclusion that both the samples sold by Mangu Ram on behalf of the firm of M/S Ram Pershad Gondmal were adulterated, but since Phool Gulab of these two samples was purchased by the firm of M/s Ram Parshad Gondmal from M/s Venkateshwara and Co. which was a large manufacturing concern and hence presumably a lincensed manufacturer the learned Judicial Magistrate held that Mangu Ram and the firm of M/s Ram Parshad Gondamal were entitled to the benefit of Section 19 sub-s. (2) of the Act and accordingly acquitted them by an order dated 18 th March, 1971.
(3.) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, made an application to the High Court of Delhi under Section 417 sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. Sub-section (4) of Section 417 required that the application for special leave should be made before the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal and, therefore, after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copy of the order of acquittal, the application for special leave should have been filed on 25 th August, 1971, but it came to be filed two days late namely, on 27 th August, 1971. The Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, therefore, made an application for condonation of delay by invoking Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and pleaded that there was sufficient cause which prevented it from making the application for special leave within time. The High Court by an order dated 3 rd November 1971 condoned the delay as there was in its opinion sufficient cause for not making the application for special leave within the time prescribed by sub-section (4) of Section 417 and, taking the view that this was a fit case which deserved the exercise of discretion under sub-section (3) of Section 417, the High Court granted special leave to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to appeal against the order of acquittal.;