Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Devineni Avinash - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.468 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 - Section 6 - Child Marriage Resistant Act, 1929 - Section 9 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 188 and 290, 149 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - General elections held – Condo nation of delay - Whether limitation starts from date of cause of action till filing of report or limitation starts from date of complaint till date of taking cognizance there are divergent opinions expressed by different Benches of Hon’ble Apex Court - Whether relevant date is date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of offence - Whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding - Petitioner/accused is a political leader of Congress party who contested from Vijayawada Parliament Constituency in general elections held - While Police were conducting patrolling they noticed that petitioner has organized a bike rally on eve of greeting National Youth Congress President and other senior congress leaders and when rally reached Mary Matha Church on road petitioner herein along with other accused created traffic disturbance to public by putting their bikes across road and violated conditions of permission obtained for bike rally and also conducted bike rally out of time which resulted in causing traffic problem to public at large and also created heavy sound pollution - Basing on that crime is registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 188 and 290 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 –
Finding of the Court: Court are of opinion that will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding question as to what is relevant date for purpose of computing period of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code primarily because in that case this Court was dealing with Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 which is a special Act - It specifically stated that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under said Act after expiry of one year from date on which offence is alleged to have been committed - There is no reference either to Section 468 or Section 473 of Criminal Procedure Code in that judgment - It does not refer to Sections 4 and 5 of Criminal Procedure Code which carve out exceptions for Special Acts - This Court has not adverted to diverse aspects including aspect that inaction on part of court in taking cognizance within limitation though complaint is filed within time may work great injustice on complainant - Moreover reliance placed on Case in court opinion was not apt – Court hold that for purpose of computing period of limitation under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code relevant date is date of filing of complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not date on which Magistrate takes cognizance - Court further hold that Bharat Kale which is followed in lays down correct law – He will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not authority for deciding question as to what is relevant date for purpose of computing period of limitation under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code - There is no dispute about fact that report was given and complaint was registered within one year from date of cause of action - In such a scenario Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code has no application to facts of case - Contention of petitioner that without filing a petition seeking condo nation of delay is condoned also has no legs to stand as there is no delay in case on hand - As observed by Hon’ble Apex Court delay on part of Court should not affect complainant –
Result: Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 11.11.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.809 of 2020 in C.C.No.5275 of 2018 by I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 258 and 468 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case in brief are:
The petitioner/accused is a political leader of Congress party who contested from Vijayawada Parliament Constituency in the general elections held in 2014. On 29.04.2015 at about 5:00 P.M. while the Police were conducting patrolling from Ramvarappadu ring to Padavala Revu Junction, they noticed that the petitioner has organized a bike rally on the eve of greeting the National Youth Congress President and other senior congress leaders and when the rally reached Mary Matha Church on Eluru road, the petitioner herein along with other accused created traffic disturbance to the public by putting their bikes across the road and violated the conditions of the permission obtained for bike rally and also conducted the bike rally out of time which resulted in causing traffic problem to the public at large and also created heavy sound pollution. Basing on that crime No.265 of 2015 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 188 and 290 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The petitioner who is accused No.1 has filed an application under Sections 258 and 468 I.P.C. seeking his discharge from the above said offences alleging that the offence occurred on 29.04.2015 but the charge sheet was filed on 08.08.2018, cognizance was taken on 06.10.2018 and taking cognizance of the above offence after one year from the date of offence is not maintainable without there being a petition seeking condonation of delay. The Court below dismissed the said application observing that once the Court has taken cognizance of the offence, it has to be construed that the delay has been condoned and also observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of taking cognizance the only forum available to him is the revisional Court and it cannot review its own order of taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of the process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision.
4. Heard Sri Ch. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri K.Anand kumar for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without taking into consideration, the contention of the petitioner that without their being any petition to condone the delay in taking cognizance, cognizance has been taken and no opportunity was also given to the petitioner before taking cognizance which is mandatory and no special order was passed by the trial Court at the time of taking cognizance which is contrary to the settled law and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500 and submits that interpreting a statutory provision, the court should read the Section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience, nor does any canon of construction permit the Court to read the Section in such a manner as to render it to some extent otiose.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that under Sections 251 and 258 Cr.P.C. the trial court has got the power to discharge the accused when there is no material or when there is abuse of process of law. He also placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Sarvan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054 and submits that the prosecution of an accused beyond the prescribed period of limitation makes all the proceedings non-est and due to the negligence of the prosecution the victim cannot be made to suffer and the said decision is clearly in consonance with the conc
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
