Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, S. V. N. BHATTI
D. Gandharuban – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties' arguments on legal charges presented. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. petitioners charged under ipc section 304a. (Para 3) |
| 3. court evaluates limitation period for charges. (Para 4) |
| 4. conclusion and order to dismiss petition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.Kumanan, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties are considered together with the submission that was recorded by this Court on 02.01.2024, when notice was issued.
3. The State counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the reasoning given by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem in the Order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-P.19), to hold that the petitioners can also be charged for abetment of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, for which the period of limitation is three years from the date of the occurrence, i.e., 29.09.2017.
4. The following reasoning is relevant for our consideration:
The limitation period for taking cognizance of an offence is tolled for the duration the accused is absconding, allowing prosecution to proceed even after significant delays.
The period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is computed from the date of the offence until the date of filing the charge-sheet or complaint. Cognizance taken after the expiry of this....
Cognizance of offenses under IPC taken after the limitation period is invalid without proper justification from the prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
