IMPORTANT POINT
A charge can be amended at any time by the Court if it does not cause prejudice to the accused and is necessary in the interest of justice.

ORDER

M.M. Mirdhe, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 18.9.1991 passed by the Additional Munsiff and II Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur in C.C. No. 49/89.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

3. The police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on 16.1.1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and also for the offences under Sections 89(A) and (B) of the M.V. Act on the allegation that the petitioner on 19.12.1988 at about 8.30 p.m. drove his motorcycle bearing No. CEW 9358 on Poona-Bangalore Road from the bus-stand side in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the deceased Hanumanthappa in front of Kambli Society and caused grievous injuries to his head resulting in his death. The evidence has commenced in the court below and the prosecution has examined some witnesses. The prosecution filed an application under Section 216 Cr. P.C. for addition of the charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 20 I-and 202 I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. has allowed it. The petitioner has challenged the said order.

4. A charge can be amended at any time by the court if it does not cause prejudice to the accused and if it is necessary in the interest of justice. It also cannot be disputed in this case that the offences sought to be added by the amendment of the charge under Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. can be tried alongwith the offence under Section 304 and other offences included in the original charge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that offence that is said to be added i.e. under Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. will be punishable only with imprisonment for six months which is 1/4th of the punishment provided for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and on the date when the order came to be passed i.e. on 18.9.1991 the court cannot take cognizance of these two offences as it would be beyond the period of limitation of one year.

5. In State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the object and cope of Section 468 as follows:

"The object of Criminal P.c. inputting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to proven the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation."

He also relied on K. Hanumantha Rao v. K. Narasimha Rao and others2 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as follows:

"20. To sum up, a statutory obligation is placed upon the Court under Section 468 Cr. P.C. not to take cognizance of the offences of the categories specified in sub-sec. (2) thereof after lapse of the period of limitation. The Code does not provide an opportunity to the accused of being heard on the bar of limitation enacted under Section 468 of the Code before taking cognizance of offences of the categories specified in sub-section (2) thereof. The Code does not also envisage issue of any process against the accused before taking cognizance of the offence. Any cognizance of the offence taken by the Court is subject to defeasance of the cognizance on the ground of limitation and it is open to the accused to plead before the Court in response to the process issued to him that the complaint or the challan filed against him and taken cognizance of by the Court is barred by limitation. Such a plea can