Back
1977 Supreme(Pat) 142
PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
Kunj Behari Singh
Versus
Shanti Lal Sah
Decided On : AUGUST 16, 1977
Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not apply to offenses punishable with both imprisonment and fine. The limitation period for such offenses is determined by considering the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment of fine.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Cognizance of Offence - Limitation - Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Applicability - Offence punishable with imprisonment and fine - Whether limitation under Section 468(2)(c) applies - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a Sub-Inspector of Police, a constable, and a chowkidar, were accused of illegally arresting and extorting money from the complainant. The complaint was filed in 1969, but the trial was delayed due to various factors, including the reluctance of Executive Magistrates to proceed against a police officer. In 1976, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses under Sections 342 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code, dropping the charge under Section 161.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prescribes a limitation period of three years for offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, does not apply to offenses punishable with both imprisonment and fine. In such cases, the limitation period is determined by considering the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment of fine.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies to offenses punishable with both imprisonment and fine. 2. Whether the cognizance of the offense was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and held that it does not apply to offenses punishable with both imprisonment and fine. The court reasoned that the limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) is intended for offenses where the maximum punishment is imprisonment, and it does not take into account the additional punishment of fine and the possibility of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 2. The court held that the cognizance of the offense was not barred by limitation because the limitation period for offenses punishable with both imprisonment and fine is determined by considering the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment of fine. In this case, the maximum term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine was nine months, which was within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the cognizance of the offense was not barred by limitation and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not wrong in taking cognizance under Sections 342 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code and dropping it under Section 161 of the Code.
Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 590 CA of 1969, pending in the Court of Shri S.J. Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea. Petitioner No. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and at the time of the occurrence he was posted at Amour Police station in the district of Purnea. Petitioner No. 2 is a constable and petitioner No. 3 is a chowkidar.
2. On 12-9-69, opposite party Shanti Lal Sah filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea, against the petitioners and one daffadar Jainuddin, making, inter alia, the following allegations. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 Kunj Behari Singh was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Amour Police-station petitioner No. 2 Dwarika Rai was posted as a constable at the said police-station and petitioner No. 3 was the Chowkidar of the complainants village. The complainants father had a kirana shop in his village Bagdaha, within the jurisdiction of Amour police-station. On 7-9-69, petitioner No. 2 Dwarika Rai along with petitioner No. 3 and daffadar Jainuddin came to the shop of the complainants father and told the complainant that the Sub-Inspector of Police (Petitioner No. 1) had asked them to bring the complainant under arrest to the police-station as he was wanted in a dacoity case. The complainant pleaded his innocence and wanted to see if there was any warrant of arrest or any written order for his arrest. He was told that there was a verbal order from petitioner No. 1 to arrest him and to bring him at the police-station. The complainant was illegally arrested and was taken to the police-station. He was kept under a Peepal tree where petitioner No. 1 came at about 7 P.M. The father of the complainant and some other witnesses had also reached the police-station by that time. When petitioner No. 1 arrived he told the complainants father that the complainant was involved in some dacoity cases. After some time petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have told the complainants father that if he wanted his sons release, he should pay him a sum of Rs. 2000/-This surprised the complainants father who requested petitioner No. 1 to release the complainant as he was innocent. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter agreed to release the complainant if he was paid a sum of Rs. 1200/-. The complainants father had to agree to this illegal demand and paid a sum of Rs. 200/- to petitioner No. 1 and promised to give the balance amount of Rs. 1000/- by 10-9-69. The complainant was then allowed to return to his house. On 9-9-69, the complainant along with some others came to Purnea to ascertain as to whether he was actually an accused in any dacoity case. There they learnt that the complainant was not involved in any case. On 10-9-69, the complainants father went to the police-station to request petitioner No. 1 for some more time and to make further enquiry within that period. Petitioner No. 1 is said to have told him that as his son had gone to Purnea he would now not take the money from him and asked him to surrender the complainant in Court. On 11-9-69, the complainants father made further enquiries and learnt that the complainant was not wanted in any case. Thus, a complaint was filed against the petitioners for putting them on trial under Sections 342, 349 and 16.1 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the same date and the case was sent for enquiry to Shri B.B. Sahay, Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea,
3. It may be relevant to state here about the treatment this complaint received at the hands of the Executive Magistrate, Shri B.B. Sahay did not submit any report until 7-10-69 when he was transferred and the enquiry was entrusted to Shri S.P. Sinha, Magistrate, 1st Class. He also did not submit any report until 24-5-71. On 24-5-71,the order sheet mentions that the complainant filed a petitio
