Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh - Respondent
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 366 of 2014
Decided On : 11-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : J.Y. Ghurde, A.P.P.
For the Respondent:N.R. Tekade, Advocate
The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution.
Headnote:
Sanction - Criminal Procedure - Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The victim accused a Sub-Divisional Police Officer of asking her for illicit relations in exchange for a favor. The chargesheet against the accused was filed after the investigating officer presumed that sanction was necessary to prosecute the public servant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cognizance was not barred by limitation and allowed the application, quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and restoring the case for trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the chargesheet was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was quashed, and the case was restored for trial.
1. The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Akola in Criminal Revision No.91/2011 is before this Court.
2. Heard learned A.P.P. for applicant-State and learned counsel for non-applicant-original accused.
3. By the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge,Akola not only allowed the revision filed on behalf of the non-applicant-accused before it but also stopped the proceeding of S.C.C.No.803/2009 under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The few facts to be narrated for deciding the present case are as under:
The victim lodged a report with P.S.Civil Lines, Akola on 21/8/2005 alleging therein that the non-applicant herein on telephone asked her to keep illicit physical relations with him for a night for the favourable consideration of candidature of her son for his appointment in the police department. The non-applicant herein at the relevant time was working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division, Akola. The complaint was lodged by the victim on 21/8/2005 and since it disclosed commission of cognizable offence an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the present non-applicant vide Crime No.646/2005.
5. The Police Station Officer,P.S.Civil Lines, Akola investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the entire case papers to Superintendent of Police, Akola for obtaining sanction to prosecute the non-applicant he being a public servant under Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Superintendent of Police, Akola forwarded the entire case papers to the State Government seeking sanction against the non-applicant. By letter dated 2/1/2009 which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, by Office of the Special Inspector General of Police, Amravati Division, Amravati that there is no need for previous sanction to prosecute the non-applicant. After receipt of this, Superintendent of Police, Akola vide his letter dated 13/2/2009, directed the P.S.O.P.S. Civil Lines, Akola to file chargesheet against the non-applicant. Accordingly, the chargesheet was filed in the Court on 5/3/2009.
6. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the challan presented by P.S.O.P.S.Civil Lines,Akola. The case was registered as S.C.C.No.803/2009.
7. During the pendency of the said criminal case an application for dismissing the chargesheet was filed for and on behalf of the non-applicant on 14/2/2011. The said application is at Exh.17 on the record of S.C.C.No.803/2009. As per the said application(Exh.17) though the report is dated 18/8/2005 the F.I.R. is dated 21/8/2005 and the chargesheet is filed on 5/3/2009. Thus, according to the learned counsel for non-applicant the chargesheet is barred by limitation and no cognizance of the said application should have been taken by the learned Magistrate since according to non-applicant the offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable only for one year therefore in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the limitation prescribed for filing the chargesheet is one year.
8. The learned Magistrate on 19/5/2011 rejected the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant. The revision which was filed by the non-applicant was allowed and stopped the proceeding under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the non-applicant. Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure which falls under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:
“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
