Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 183
[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1364 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Ishwar Lal Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan (Tatia, J.)
HON'BLE PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON'BLE H.R. PANWAR, J.
HON'BLE DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Ishwar Lal Khatri
Versus
State of Rajasthan
F.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1905 of 2009, decided on 09.02.2010
Vijay Purohit, for Petitioner;
B.K. Mehar, Public Prosecutor
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1898, Sec. 99-A; Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 3; Penal Code, Secs. 153-A and 295 — Bar of limitation —Whether only a technical matter or it is a policy in the interest of public — Court power to condone the delay — Publication work-intention to outrage religious feelings — In exercise of powers u/S. 99-A Cr.P.C. State Govt. forfeited the same — Challenged after 45 years — Submitted no application u/S. 5 for condonation of delay — Held — The object of law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own in-action, negligence or laches — Now after 6 years from filing of this petition cannot be granted time to file application u/S. 5 for condonation of delay for want of bonafides. (Paras 12 to 16)
Petition dismissed.
na-iz-la-] 1898] /kkjk 99-A( ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 3( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 153-A ,oa 295 & ifjlhek dk otZu & D;k ;g dsoy ,d rdfudh ekeyk gS ;k tu fgr esa ,d uhfr gS & foyEc ekQh dh U;k;ky; dh 'kfDr & izdk'ku dk;Z & /kkfeZd Hkkouk,a vkgr djus dk vk'k; & jkT; ljdkj us na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 99-d dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mls tCr fd;k & 45 o"kZ i'pkr~ pqUukSfr nh & foyEc ekQh gsrq /kkjk 5 ds rgr dksbZ vkosnu i= izLrqr ugha fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ifjlhek fof/k dk mn~ns'; gS ml O;o/kku ;k gkfu dks jksduk gS tks nh?kZ miHkksx ls U;k; vkSj lkH;k esa gkfly dh tk ldrh gS ;k tks Lo;a i{kdkj dh fu"Øh;rk] mis{kk ;k xQyr ls [kksbZ tk ldrh gS & vc bl ;kfpdk ds nk;j djus ds djhc N% o"kZ i'pkr~ ln~Hkkouk ds vHkko esa foyEc ekQh gsrq /kkjk 5 ds rgr vkosnu nk;j djus gsrq le; iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼in la[;k 12 ls 16½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
2. The State Government by exercising power under Section 99A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (sic 1898) (which was in force at relevant time) forfeited two publications namely, `Jagat Hitkarlni' and `Atm Puran' after opining that the said publications (books) are intended to promote the feelings and hatred in different classes of citizen of India and are berately and maliciously intended to outrage religious feelings of the Jain (Bania) community by insulting the religion and the religious of that class and the publication of work punishable under Section 153A and 295 of Indian Penal Code. To give effect to the intention of the State Government to forfeit the said publication (books) a notification was published in gazette of the Rajasthan dated 5.8.1957, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has challenged the said notification dated 5.8.1957 after about 45 years from the date of the said notification, whereas as per Section 99A which was in force at time of publication of notification dated 5.8.1957 as well as under sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which is in force now), the period of limitation for challenge to such notification is two months from the date of publication of notification in official gazette. The petitioner was well aware that period of limitation is two months only and the petitioner took a plea that prescribing period of limitation of two months for challenge to said notification in Section 96(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14of the Constitution of India and submitted this petition without any application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of about 45 years.
4. To meet with the objection of the bar of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court may look into the broader aspect and may ignore the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 96 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner though took this plea but could not substantiate it by his own arguments nor with the help of any precedent on this point.
5. We may observed here that it is not necessary that every now plea based on the point of law must find support from judicial precedent, but if entirely new plea is taken in arguments then there must be some reasons and justification for the new plea which may find support from law express or may have been implied support of law or at least must stand to logic. However, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated that he has nothing more than to state that court may look into broader aspect of freedom of speech, expression and right to trade protected by law and because of issue involved in this petition the period of limitation prescribed by law may be ignored.
6. It will be beneficial to quote sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
"3. Bar of limitation: (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defense,"
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that if the suit, appeal or application is submitted after prescribed period of limitation then such suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, is required to be dismissed even when objection of period of limitation has not been set up as defence. The Hon'ble Privy Council in the case of Maqbul Ahmed & Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1935 Privy Council 85 considered the issue whether any judicial decision would enable the court to relieve the parties from the operation of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Privy Council held as under:
"....In their Lordships' opinion it is impossible to hold that in
