Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 554
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.K.Deb, J.
Pawan Maroo Alias Pawan Kumar Maroo
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 299 of 1992 ;
Decided On : JUNE 05, 1997
Delay in taking cognizance of an offence beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be condoned under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 153-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - COGNIZANCE - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SECTION 473 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING OF THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
A first information report was registered against the petitioner, the Editor of Hindi daily "RANCHI EXPRESS", for publishing a news item that allegedly incited communal disharmony. The news item reported on a bomb explosion incident and the subsequent tension in the area. The petitioner challenged the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the ground that the news item did not constitute an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code and that the cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the news item did not promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and therefore did not constitute an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further held that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the delay could not be condoned under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the news item published by the petitioner constituted an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 3. Whether the delay in taking cognizance could be condoned under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted when any words spoken or written promote enmity between two different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. 2. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars cognizance of an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or less if the cognizance is not taken within three years from the date of the offence. 3. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to take cognizance of an offence even after the limitation period has expired if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. However, the delay can only be condoned after giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the prosecution against the petitioner, holding that it was an abuse of the process of the court.
P.K.Deb, J.
1. The petitioner in this case is the Editor of Hindi daily "RANCHI EXPRESS" published from Ranchi. It is the contention of the petitioner that this daily has a very wide circulation in the State of Bihar in general and in South Bihar in particular having vast readership in this region.
2. A first information report dated 8.8.1992 was registered against the petitioner on the written information of the then Officer-in-charge of Chakradharpur Police Station (respondent No. 3) wherein it has been stated that he received a written communication from the then Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa (respondent No. 2) annexed with the written report of one Mahendra Prasad Singh, Chakradharpur, a correspondent of Ranchi Express. In that written report, the correspondent had addressed to respondent No. 2 that he had not sent any report regarding the bomb explosion in Chandrnamari and Banglatanr area at the relevant point of time, the news item of which was published at Ranchi Express dated 8.8.1992. He also denied to have sent the above news by telephone and he had not quoted any person named Bahadur Oraon in this regard. As per the communication received from respondent No. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa and the denial being made by the correspondent of Ranchi Express, the news item as published in the daily Ranchi Express of its issue dated 8.8.1992 revealed a prima facie case of incitement of communal disharmony in the area and hence a case was registered under Sec. 153-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. This petition was filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure originally for quashing the first information report and the investigation of the above mentioned police case. After the petition was admitted, a supplementary affidavit has been filed challenging the cognizance being taken in the case vide order dated 16.1.1997 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in G.R. Case No. 265 of 1992 arising out of the same first information report and the police case.
4. Mr. N.N. Sinha learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the news item published can in no stretch of imagination be stated to be an incitement for communal disharmony between the two communal or ethnic groups in the area of Chakradharpur. His next submission is that even if there is any case made out, cognizance taken on 16.1.1997 is bad in the eye of law as prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhuri, learned Standing Counsel No. 1 appearing for and on behalf of the respondents, submitted that whatever contentions are being made for and on behalf of the petitioner can be very well raised before the trying Magistrate concerned as cognizance has already been taken in the case and it cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the court.
6. It is admitted that at the relevant time there was an incident of bomb explosion and a heavy tension arose at Chakradharpur area because of disputes between the two groups which resulted in clamping of curfew for several days in the area. So, on factual aspect, there is no denial of fact that there was some dispute in the area between the two groups and hence the administration had to clamp curfew. Whether the news item as published constitutes an offence under Sec. 153-A of the Indian Penal Code or not is the only crux of dispute in this case. If no case under Sec. 153-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out on plain reading of the news item, then the proceeding is definitely bad in the eye of law as there is no prima facie case. So, let me first of all take up the news item for consideration of the first submission made for and behalf of the petitioner.
7. It is the contention of Mr. N.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner that few days prior to this publication of the news item, some cartoons were published connecting the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, which aroused the sentiment of the
