IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation prescribed u/sA68 Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the offences falling u/ss 408, 477-A and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ORDER

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. - Cases lodged by the Pavagada Police before the Munsiff & J.M.F.C., Pavagada, came to be registered as C.C. Nos. 185 of 1986,183 of 1986 and 184 of 1986 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 477-A and 201 I.P.C.

2. After filing the charge-sheets, summons were issued to the respondent/accused returnable by 23.6.1986 on which day the respondent/accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail. It was made out that there was a delay of 5 years 2 months and 25 days in filing the complaints. As the question of limitation was pointed out before the learned Magistrate, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complaints submitted were well within time. Moreover, the complaints were lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 477A and 201 I.P.C. and the limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr. P.C. has no application on the cases. He also contended that the offences alleged were continuous offences. In support of his contention the learned Prosecutor relied upon the decisions, viz., Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee v. SVGO Mills1, State of Bihar v. Deokaram2, Ponney Singh v: State of Rajasthan3, Suresh Bai v. State of Gujarat4. He also contended that once cognizance has been taken in spite of there being delay, the Court gets jurisdiction to proceed with the case or drop the proceedings or to dismiss the complaints. For these reasons, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the objections raised be overruled and the cases be proceeded with.

3. The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon some of the decisions of various High Courts and this Court, viz., Sawanram v. State of Haryana5, Jagannathan v. State6, I.L.R. 1986 Kar., 3828,7 contending that the complaints are time barred and deserve to be rejected.

4. The learned Magistrate making observation thus:

"In this case also there is no application filed by the prosecution praying for condonation of delay caused in filing the charge-sheet and there is no notice to the accused in this behalf to put forth his grievance. Under such circumstances when once the period of limitation prescribed under "the Code for launching the prosecution was expired, a valuable right accrues to the accused to the effect that there would be no prosecution thereafter. This proposition of law is applicable to the present case on hand and as such there is no prosecution after the expiry of time as such the contention of the accused is accepted and the contention of the prosecutor is rejected. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence could not have been taken by my learned predecessor. The proceedings are vitiated "

Passed the orders quashing the proceedings against the accused as time barred. Challenging the same, the State preferred these revision petitions contending that the view of the trial Court is quite incorrect and unsustainable. Sri. Jadhav, learned State Public Prosecutor, also contends that, if the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration' the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 477-A 201 I.P.C. and had rightly understood Section 468 Cr. P.C., he would not have ordered to quash the proceedings and on the other hand, he would have proceeded with further.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides, it is proper to quote Section 468 Cr. P.C. and Sections 408, 477-A and 201 I.P.C.

Section 468 Cr. P.c. reads as follows:

"468. (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 year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but n