LexPRITAM SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ B c D E F G PRITAM SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANi\ March 15, 1971 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.) 971 Police Act, 1861, s. 42-Period of lilnitation for prosecution. Supre1ne' Court-Appeal-New point-Can be permitecl to be urged if n;·ises pure question of law aml does not require investigation buo facts. The appellant was a constable in the police force of Haryana State. At the relevant time he was pocted to do duty at the police lines, Kamal. It was reported by the Lines Officer that he was. not present at the roll call on the evening of November 25. 1963. The Judicial Magistrate gave him a notice in January J 966 asking him to explain why he should not be held guilty under s. 29 of the Police Act 1891 being absent on the aforesaid date. The appellant explained that he was mentally upset on account of the.death of two near relatives and was himself ill. The Magis· trate held that the ilPPellant was technically guilty, even though his case required sympathetic consideration. In this view he sentenced the appel· lant to pay a fine of Rs. 51 • pnd in default to undergo simple imprison· ment for seven days. Appeals before the Sessions Judge and the High Court failed. In appeal to this Court by special leave it was contended on behalf of the appellant, that since more than three months, had inter· vened between the commission of the alleged offence and the commence-. mcnt of .the prosecutioni the trial was time-barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Police Act. This point was raised in this Court fdr the first time but had been stated in the statement of propositions of law to be advanced before the Court. and a copy of the same had been supplied to the counsel for the State. Allowing the appeal, HELD : (i) The question of limitation being purely one of law requiring no fresh investigation into facts. the appellant could he per· milled to raise it for the first time in this Court. [973 HJ (ii) The appellant's prosecution was initiated against him for some· thing done under the provisions of the Act. namely non-compliance with the requirement to be on duty as required under the Police Act. There· fore under s. 42 of the Act the prosecution should have been commenced against the appellant within three months of the commission of the act complained of. The act complained of was alleged to have been com- mitted on November 25. 1963. Even treating the notice issued by the judicial magistrate as amounting- to commencement of prosecution, it took place oniy on January 10, 1966, long after the expiry of three months from the date of the commission of the offence. Therefore the prosectl· tion commenced against the appellant was barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Act. [974 D·El Maulud Ahmad v. Stllte of Utrar Prade.•h. [19611 Supp. '! S.C.R. 38, H distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRJSD!CT!ON: Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1968. 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 3 S.C.R. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 8, I 968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1967. S. Lakshminarasu. for the appellant- B. D. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the appel- lant accused challenges the judgm_ent and order dated February 8, 1968, of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crim ind Revision No. 237 of 1967, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him for an offence under s. 29 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The appellant was at the relevant period a constable having roll number 857. He was originally recruited in 1950 to the police service in the composite Punjab State; and on the forma- tion of the State of Haryana, he was aJlotted to Haryana. The appellant was posted to do duty at the police lines, Karnal, be- fore November 25, 1963. It was reported by the Lines Officer on Npvembcr 25, 1963 that when roll-call was taken on the evening of that day at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was found absent. The report also refers to the absence of certiiin other police officers, with whom we are not concerned. The judicial magistrate, Karna], issued what is stated to be a notice dated January 10, 1966 to the appellant, alleging that he was found absent from duty from the police lines at the time of roll-call on November 25, 1963. He was asked to e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.