Back
High Court Of Delhi
G.D.IYER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 of 1977
Decided On : 10/17/1977
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - LIMITATION - SECTION 468, 469, 470, 473 - DELAY IN FILING CHARGE-SHEET - CONDONATION - EXPLANATION - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet was filed 7 days after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused argued that the prosecution was barred by limitation. The prosecution explained the delay by stating that it took time to obtain the consent of the Delhi Administration for initiation of court proceedings as required by section 196(2) of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the charge-sheet was properly explained and that it was necessary to condone the delay in the interests of justice. The court found that the investigating officer had acted diligently and that there was no mala fide intention on his part. The court also held that the accused had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the charge-sheet was properly explained? 2. Whether it was necessary to condone the delay in the interests of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in filing the charge-sheet was properly explained. The court took into account the fact that the investigating officer had to obtain the consent of the Delhi Administration for initiation of court proceedings, which took some time. The court also noted that the accused had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay. 2. The court held that it was necessary to condone the delay in the interests of justice. The court found that the accused were involved in a serious offence and that it was important to bring them to justice. The court also noted that the delay was not due to any mala fide intention on the part of the investigating officer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the special judge condoning the delay in filing the charge-sheet.
( 1 ) FOR the first time in India the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 introduced the law of limitation in criminal cases. Chapter XXXVI is a newly introduced chapter containing brand-new sections 467 to 473. These sections prescribe periods of limitation for launching a criminal prosecution in, certain cases. Under the repealed Code of 1898, no period of limitation was prescribed or launching a criminal prosecution and the court could not throw out a private complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay, though delay might be a good ground for doubting the prosecution story. This was consistent with the original theory of criminal justice. In a civil case a party can always compromise or get rid of his liability with the assent of the injured party. But crimes are offences against the State. All proceedings are in theory instituted on behalf of the Crown or the State. The law of limitation did not apply to criminal proceedings unless it was made applicable to them by express provisions. Now the Parliament has done so in the hope that the period of limitation would put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure the detection and punishment of the crime quickly. (See the Report of the Joint Committee ).
( 2 ) SO now an accused relying on the new sections in the new Code of 1973 can plead the bar of limitation. Section 468 says that :
"except as otherwise provided elsewhere in ths Code, no court shall take cognizan,ce of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. "sub-section (2) lays down the periods of limitation in respect of a whole range of offences punishable with sentences varying from fine only to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
( 3 ) IN the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and sections 401 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code) the accused, persons have raised an objection that the criminal case against them is barred by limitation. This objection was raised in the first instance before the special judge trying the criminal case. The special judge rejected the plea of limitation. The accused now seek a reversal of his order dated April 12, 1977 in criminal case No. 21 of 1976.
( 4 ) THE prosecution case is that in 1971 G. D. lyer, C. V. Krishnamoorthy and Vardharajan entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification from M/s. Modern Sixteen Cine Laboratory Private Limited, Bombay for inducing by exercise of personal influence the officers concerned working in the Office of Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. New Delhi, to do or to forebear to do official acts, namely, to get the value of their import licence enhanced from Rs. 1. 20 lakhs to Rs. 3. 30 lakhs for the import of cine laboratory equipments and also to secure customs clearance permit for Rs. 19,000 for cine laboratory spare parts and accessories of picture and sound printing machine.
( 5 ) IT is said that in pursuance of the conspiracy the aforementioned three persons demanded and accepted amounts of Rs. 7,500, Rs. 500 and Rs. 760 from Modern Sixteen Cine Laboratory on September 2, 1971, April 9, 1971 and December 15, 1971 respectively and that the aforesaid amounts received as illegal gratification were shared by all the three. According to the charge-sheet submitted on December 30, 1974, these three persons were charged with the offences under section 120-B read with section 163 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 6 ) BEFORE the special judge the three accused raised a preliminary objection as to limitation. They said that the prosecution as regards the offence punishable under section 120-B. Indian Penal Code was barred by time. The special judge found that there was a delay of A 7 days. He condoned the delay in filing the charge-sheet and rejected the preliminary objection. It is this order which is now being impugned by the accused before us
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
