Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Mahendra Gourisaria & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2019 Cal

18.04.2022 Item No.18 Suman Ct.42

CRMSPL 4 of 2019 With CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old CRAN 246 of 2019)

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.

Mahendra Gourisaria & Anr.

Mr. Amajit De ...for the petitioner

Affidavit of service be kept with the record.

It appears from the service report that the private

opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 left the address given in the

charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I.

The opposite parties as accused persons contested the

case in the trial Court. They did not raise any objection as

regards their address. The prosecuting agency sent the

notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act to the last known address of the opposite parties.

Therefore, this Court has every reason to hold that the

notice was sent in proper address under registered cover

and on payment of postal dues. In such case, presumption

in favour of service may be raised. Moreover, it is held by

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miss D. Ennis

vs. M/s. Calcutta Vyapar Pratistha Ltd. & Anr. reported

in AIR 1991 Cal 152 where the notice was sent in the last

known address of the opposite parties and was returned with

postal endorsement "left", service is presumed to be good

service.

In view of such decision and considering the law

relating to presumption of service under the General Clauses

Act, this Court holds that the notice of the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is presumed to be served

upon the opposite parties. Therefore, the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is taken up for hearing. The

CBI, petitioner herein, has filed the application for special

leave to appeal after expiry of 248 days and filed the instant

application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has

stated the grounds for delay in filing the special leave

petition in paragraph 12 of the petition. I have perused the

petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In my view,

the petitioner has been able to explain the reason for delay

in filing the special leave to appeal to the satisfaction of this

Court. There is sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the delay of 248 days in filing the appeal is

condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is allowed.

In Re. CRMSPL 4 of 2019

This is an application for special leave to appeal. This

Court has perused the application as well as the impugned

judgment. There is sufficient ground to grant leave to the

petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal

is allowed.

The petitioner is directed to file Memorandum of Appeal

within 30 days from the date of this order.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)