IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
B. Veeranjaneyulu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.12185 of 2018
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - 409, 420 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for alleged offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, contending that the offences took place in 2008 and were barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, which carry punishments beyond three years, were not barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that being on leave during the relevant period should prevent prosecution.
Issues: Validity of quashing criminal proceedings based on limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the defense of being on leave during the relevant period.
Ratio Decidendi: Offences punishable with imprisonment beyond three years are not barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Defense of being on leave during the relevant period is a matter to be raised at an appropriate stage before the trial court and not a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal petition, stating that there were no merits in the petition and the petitioner had to participate in the criminal proceedings.
ORDER :
Accused No.3 in C.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings therein as against him.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant. Despite notice being received, none entered appearance for respondent No.2.
3. Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.
4. The following facts require attention here:
At or about in the year 2008 for the purpose of use some drugs were purchased by D.M. and H.O., Kurnool. The Government of Andhra Pradesh launched Rajiv Arogyasri Programme in Kurnool District and it was at that time on 22.09.2008 certain news items were published in the newspapers about various travails suffered by the citizens because of absence of medicines and absence of proper treatment and absence of arrangements in that programme. Newspapers also reported misappropriation of funds on part of the authorities in purchase of drugs and other items. It was in that regard a vigilance enquiry was initiated and finally the report emerged indicating conscious spending of Rs.8,18,797/- as excess spending. In other words the drugs were purchased at a price that is higher than the market price. It was also found that the funds were misappropriated by some of the officers and further between the vendor of the medicines and the health department officers, there were negotiators and mediators who helped the authorities in doing this criminal act and these mediators also obtained 18% commission from the vendor as they helped in arranging the contract of sale and purchase of drugs. The vigilance report recommended for initiation of criminal cases and disciplinary proceedings. In pursuance of that on 23.01.2016 the then District and Medical Health Officer lodged written information with the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Kurnool. Accordingly, that was registered as Crime No.24 of 2016. After due investigation, the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool on 23.02.2017. The charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C. A.1 to A.4 are sought to be prosecuted by the said charge sheet. A.3 in that charge sheet was a pharmacist during the year 2008 and in the charge sheet it is alleged that he was instrumental in procuring the drugs supply order from the authorities to the drugs supplier and he gained unlawful benefit in the form of commission and he was part of the cheating and criminal breach of trust.
5. It is that A.3 who filed this criminal petition.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the alleged offences took place in the year 2008 and during the relevant period for a period of 100 days A.3 was on leave and therefore, he could not have committed these offences. It is further contended that the offences took place in the year 2008 and F.I.R. was registered in the year 2016 and charge sheet was filed in the year 2018 and therefore, it is barred by limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C. It is on these two grounds, learned counsel for petitioner seeks quashment.
7. As against it, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that it was only after vigilance enquiry the crime was detected and the culprits were identified and thereafter investigation took place over the alleged crime and that resulted in filing of charge sheet and since the offences alleged are under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not a bar.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides and considered the material available on record.
9. Section 409 I.P.C. provides punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
10. Section 420 I.P.C. provides punishm
AI
Offences punishable with imprisonment beyond three years are not barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Defense of being on leave during the relevant period is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing a complaint and the necessity of impleading responsible persons in a complaint again....
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing of proceedings only when no prima facie case is disclosed, with issues surrounding evidence and role requiring trial evaluation.
The main legal point established is that the filing of a charge sheet after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C is barred by law.
Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence.
Cognizance of offences specified in an FIR is barred after the expiry of the period of limitation as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Point of Law : Offence of Cheating - Inherit Powers of High Court - Extraordinary and inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., do not tilt in favour of the petitioners to pass an or....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.