JUDGMENT:---Heard Smt. Geeta Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant--State, and Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Counsel for the respondent.

2.The State wants to file appeal against acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No. 4, Dhule, in Summary Trial Criminal Case No. 2440/1992. The State has prayed that the leave be granted to file appeal as per provisions of sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So, at this stage, it is being considered, whether leave can be granted to file the criminal appeal.

3.The respondent was prosecuted for offence punishable under section 145(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that the respondent had given false information while securing the service as Constable under State Reserve Police. It is alleged that a crime was registered against the respondent, being Crime No. 118/88, for offence punishable under sections 326, 504, both read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, at City Police Station, Dhule. But the respondent did not give this information while applying for the service when he was bound to give that information.

4.It appears that the Assistant Commandant, Group No. 6 of State Reserve Police, Dhule, lodged the report at City Police Station, Dhule, on 22-11-1991 with these allegations. The Crime No. 572/91 was registered. The Police took up the investigation and then charge sheet was submitted in the Court, as per provisions of section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

5.The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing the arguments, acquitted the present respondent, on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate has observed that the report was made at the Police Station on 22-11-1991. While the concerned authority had got the form filled in from the respondent on 31-10-1990, it means, one year after the knowledge to the authority. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 25-8-1992 and he has, therefore, observed that the period of one year and 10 months had elapsed since 31-10-1990 to 25-8-1992 and as per provisions of section 468 of Cr.P.C., the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence when the proceedings was filed after the period of limitation. The learned Magistrate also on merits held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Deshpande, has argued that when the charge sheet was filed in the Court, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and, therefore, it impliedly means, that the delay was condoned as contemplated under section 473 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused on the ground that the proceeding was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and, therefore, leave be granted to file the appeal.

7.The learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Deshmukh, has argued that the offence punishable under section 145 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, prescribes the punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 100/-, or, with both and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 468 of Cr.P.C., the proceeding ought to have been taken within the period of 6 months because the matter falls under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 468 of Cr.P.C. Even if it is considered that the concerned authorities learnt about the false information given by the respondent. On receiving report from Superintendent of Police, Dhule, dated 24-12-1990, even then the proceeding filed in the Court on 25-8-1992 is barred by limitation.

8.The learned Counsel for the respondent has further argued that if any condonation of delay was expected, there ought to have been an application explaining the reasons as to why there was delay in filing the proceedings and then if the Court had been satisfi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document