LexJAPANI SAHOO versus CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)..
.l
A
JAPANI SAHOO
;.-
v.
·'
CHANDRASEKHAR MOHANTY
JULY 27, 2007
B
{C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
).
c
s. 468-Cognizance of offences-Period of limitation-Computation
of-Relevant date-Complaint for offences punishable ulss. 294 and 323 /PC
filed within three days from date of alleged offence-Held: Complaint must
\·
be held to be filed within period of limitation even though cognizance was
taken by Magistrate after a period of one year-For purpose of computing
period of limitation relevant date must be considered as date of filing
D complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not date of taking
cognizance by Magistrate or issuance of process by a Court-Connecting
provision of limitation ins. 468 with issuing of process or taking of cognizance
·~
by Court would instead of promoting justice, lead to perpetuate injustice and
defeat primary object of procedural law, and may make the provision
unsustainable and ultra virus Article 14 of the Constitution-Constitution
E of India, 1950-Article 14-Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Doctrine of reasonable construction-Held, a court of law would
interpret a provision which would help sustaining validity of law by applying
i'
F doctrine of reasonable construction rather than making it vulnerable and
y
_..,. 1
unconstitutional by adopting rule of 'litera legis'.
>" ..
Maxims: (i)actus curiae neminem gravabit and (ii) 'nullum tempus aut
)-c
1 locus occurrit regi'-Applicability of.
G
The appellant filed a complaint on 5.2.1996 alleging that the respondent,
,)-
who at the relevant time was the Inspector of Police, demanded from him a
monthly amount of Rs. 5,000/- and in that connection summoned him to the
Police Station on 2.2.1996, abused ar.d pushed him, as a result of which he
,_
fell down and sustained bodily pain; and that the respondent threatened him
H
582
~
'
}-
, .. y
- ,
JAPAN! SAHOOv. CHANDRA SEKHARMOHANTY
583
that in case he did not pay the amount, he would book him in serious cases A
like NDPS Act and dacoity. The SDJM examined the witnesses produced by
the appellant-complainant between 29.3.1996 and 24.7.1996. It was 9n
8.8.1997, that the SDJM, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses, took
cognizance of the complaint and issued summons for appearance of the accused
observing inter alia that prima facie a case of commission of offence
punishable u/ss. 294 and 323 IPC was made out The respondent-accused filed B
a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing of the
I
proceedings contending, inter alia, that no cognizance could have been taken
by the court after the period of one year, which was the limitation prescribed
in relation to offences punishable u/ss. 294 and 323 IPC. The complainant
opposed the petition contending that question of limitation should be C
considered keeping in view the act of filing of the complaint and not the act of
taking cognizance by the Court. The High Court quashed the proceedinks
holding that the date relevant and material for deciding the bar of limitation
under the Code was the date of taking cognizance by the court, and since
cognizance was taken after more than one year from the date of commission
of offences, the same was barred by limitation u/s 468 of the Code. Aggrieved, D
the complainant filed the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under
s. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant date i:tUSt ~e E
considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings
and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process
by a Court. It is settled law that a court of law would interpret a provisidn
which would help sustaining the validity of law by applying the doctrine of
reasonable construction rather than making it vulnerable and,unconstitutional p
by adopting rule of 'litera legis'. Connecting the provision of limitation In
Section 468 of the Code with issuing of process or taking of cognizance by
the Court may make it unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of t~e
Constitution. !Paras 52 and 5311603-G-H; 604-A-BI
Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, 11997) 2 SCC 397 Jt G
(1996) 11SC175 and Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of A.P., 1200318
SCC 559 : JT (2003) Supp 2 SC 569, relied on.
Siale of Punjab v. Sarwan SingExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.