Back
2008 Supreme(Chh) 95
2009(2) C.G.L.J. 7 (MP)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Hon'ble Shri S.C. Sinha, J.
HARISHANKAR & ANOTHER - Applicants
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. - Non-applicant
Misc. Criminal Case No. 770 of 2008,
Decided on 3-4-2008.
Mr. Priyank Choubey, Advocate, for the Applicants.
Mr. Pankaj Dixit, Panel Lawyer, for the Non-applicant.
The main legal point established is that the court must ensure that the delay in taking cognizance of an offence is properly explained or condoned, as per the provisions of Section 468 and Section 473 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 224 of IPC, Section 31 (B) of Prisoners Act 1900 - Section 468, Section 473 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Upon release on parole, they failed to surrender and were subsequently charged under Section 224 of IPC and Section 31 (B) of Prisoners Act 1900. The applicants argued that the charges were time-barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges were indeed time-barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and that the delay had not been properly explained or condoned as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while Section 473 of Cr.P.C. provides for the extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, the delay must be properly explained or condoned, and the court must satisfy itself about the delay before taking cognizance of the offence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the pending trial was quashed as it was barred by limitation.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Harishankar and Chotelal whose application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') was dismissed by JMFC Begumganj, Raisen in Regular Trial No. 73/2007. Further applicants have prayed that FIR dated 9-10-2006 and R.T. No. 73/07 pending before JMFC, Begumganj under Section 224 of IPC and 31 (B) of Prisoners Act 1900 be quashed.
2. Applicants case is that, both the applicants were convicted by Second Additional Sessions Judge Begumganj, Raisen under Sections 302, 34 and 324 of IPC on 10-8-1992 in Sessions Trial No. 87/1986 for life imprisonment and one year sentence. While applicants were in jail, applicant No.1 Harishankar was released on Parole on 21-8-1998 and Applicant No.2 Chotelal on 28-1-1999. However, applicant No.1 was to surrender on 5-9-1998 and applicant No.2 on 12-2-1999 after parole but they did not surrender and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested respectively on 20-11-1998 and on 13-04-2000.
3. On 9-1-2006, PSO Begumganj registered Crime No. 286/06 against these applicants under Section 31 (B) of Prisoners Act, 1900 and filed a challan before the JMFC Begumganj, Raisen and the learned Magistrate has framed charges against these applicants under Section 224 of IPC and 31 (B) of Prisoners Act, 1900 on 13-12-2007. However, applicants moved an application before JMFC Begumganj the incident took place on 21-8-1998 and 28-1-1999 and after lapse of 8 years Court cannot take cognizance in view of Section 468 of the Code. However, learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 4-10-2007 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, vide order dated 15-11-2007 dismissed their prayer hence, this petition under Section 482 of the Code has been filed.
4. It has been contended by Shri Priyank Choubey, learned Counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1-Harishankar was released on Parole on 21-81998 and Applicant No. 2-Chotelal on 28-1-1999 up to 5-9-1998 and 12-21999. However, both the applicants absconded and applicant No.1 was arrested on 20-11-1998 and applicant No.2 on 3-4-2000. The FIR against these applicants was lodged by Town Inspector Begumganj on 9-10-2006 almost 8 years of the offence under Section 31 (B) of Prisoners Act, 1900.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer of the State/respondent Shri Pankaj Dixit has argued that as soon as information was received by Town Inspector Begumganj, F.I.R was lodged on 9-10-2006 and supported the impugned order.
6. It will be profitable to reproduce Section 468 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under :
"Section 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 subsection (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 not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment." 7. Applicants are charged under Section 224 of IPC and 31 (B) of Prisoners Act, 1900, in both these offences, applicants can be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. In these circumstances, as provided in Section 468 (2) (C) of Cr.P.C. the period of limitation is 3 years in these circumstances the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 224 of IPC and 31 (B) of Prisoners Act, 1900 after 3 years. Further Section 473 of Cr.P.C. provides extension
