SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(All) 644

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.N.Bakshi, J.
Prakash Chandra Sharma
Versus
Kaushal Kishore
Decided On : 14 November 1979

It is incumbent upon a party to file an application for condonation of the delay along with a time-barred complaint in order to get the benefit of Section 473, Cr. P. C.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 468, 469, 473 - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - NECESSITY OF FILING APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH TIME BARRED COMPLAINT - SECTION 473, CR. P. C. - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed against the accused under Section 182, IPC, for giving false information to the Municipal Board. The complaint was filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2)(b), Cr. P. C. The accused filed an objection under Section 468(b), Cr. P. C., on the ground that the period of limitation had expired. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint as time-barred. The Sessions Judge allowed a revision petition filed by the complainant and set aside the order of the Magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that it is incumbent upon a party to file an application for condonation of the delay along with a time-barred complaint in order to get the benefit of Section 473, Cr. P. C. The Court further held that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint and summon the accused without an application for condonation of delay being filed.

Issues: Whether it is incumbent upon a party to file an application for condonation of the delay along with a time-barred complaint in order to get the benefit of Section 473, Cr. P. C.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 468, Cr. P. C. bars the taking of cognizance by a court with respect to an offence for which the complaint is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The Court further held that Section 473, Cr. P. C. provides for condonation of delay in filing a complaint, but it is necessary for the prosecuting agency to simultaneously file an application for condonation of the delay along with the complaint. The Court also held that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint and summon the accused without an application for condonation of delay being filed.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

P. N. BAKSHI, J.

( 1 ) IT appears that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C, were pending between Prakash Chandra Sharma and Babuddin. On 20th Dec. , 1975, Prakash Chandra filed an application informing the Municipal Board that these proceedings were over, and the rasta in dispute had been released. This information was supplied for the purpose of obtaining sanction with respect to which an earlier application was already pending before the Municipal Board. On the same day, viz. 20th Nov. , 1975, the Municipal Board sanctioned the plan submitted by Prakash Chandra. It appears that on 11th Nov. , 1976, Babuddin filed an application and affidavit before the Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Board that the information which was conveyed by Prakash Chandra regarding the termination of proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was false and that the same were still pending. On 6th May, 1977, a complaint was filed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Board, Bulandshahr. The accused was summoned for 2nd June, 1977. He appeared and filed an objection under Section 468 (b), Cr. P. C. on the ground that the period of limitation had already expired and the Court could not take cognizance of the complaint. On 7th Feb. , 1978, the Asstt. District Government Counsel filed an application that the Officer-in-Charge, Municipal Board obtained knowledge of the false information given by Prakash Chandra on 11th Nov. , 1976, when Babuddin filed his application and affidavit before him. If the period of limitation is computed from the date of knowledge, the complaint would be well within one year of such date and the delay in filing the complaint should, therefore, be condoned. The Magistrate on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused on the ground that it had been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr which has been allowed on 2nd June, 1978; hence this revision.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders.

( 3 ) THE question of law which has to be determined in the instant case is whether it is incumbent upon a party to file an application for condonation of the delay along with a time barred complaint, so that he can get the benefit of Section 473, Criminal P. C. Section 468 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has now specified the period of limitation within which a Court can take cognizance of various offences mentioned therein. It bars the taking of cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation.

Section 468; (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (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.

( 4 ) IN the instant case the offence under Section 182, I. P. C. is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months, therefore, Section 468 (2) (b) would be applicable. Under Section 469, Cr. P. C. the period of limitation in relation to an offender commences:

(a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom, the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In co











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top