LexSRINIVASA GOPAL versus UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH (NOW STATE)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRINIV ASA GOP AL A v. UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH (NOW STATE) JUL y 18, 1988 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) -~ • Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21-inordinate delay of 9-1/2 years in proceeding with criminal prosecution for rash and negligent driving-Proceedings quashed-Quick justice is a sine qua non of Art. 21. c ""' Cr. P. C. 1973-Sections 468 and 473--Taking cognizance after expiry of the period of limitation-When permissible? Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945- D Section 32-Applicability of Cr.P. C. 1973 to Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant was driving a jeep which met with an accident and one of the occupants died and another sustained grievous injuries. According to the Police, the accident was attributable to rash and ,negli· gent driving of the appellant. He was charge-sheeted under section 279 E IPC read with sections 304-A/338 IPC and a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 22nd November 1976. The Magistrate held that cognizance was taken on 22nd Novell)ber, 1976 itself. The appel- lant moved the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Art. 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the investigations started on 22nd f November, 1976 on the registration of the case and were completed on 8th September, 1977, and cognizance was taken on 31st March, 1986 when the Deputy Commissioner passed an order for issuing summons to the appellant. The High Court quashed the charges against the appellant and remitted the case to the Magistrate for considering it afresh. G This appeal by special leave is against the High Court Judgment. It was contended before this Court that since cognizance was taken in 1986, it was barred by section 468 Cr.P.C. On behalf oftbe Respondent it was contended that the provisions of Cr .P .C. do not apply to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. H 477 ~ 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD:l.l Section 473 Cr.P.C. provides that any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the B interest of justice. Taking cognizance means judicial application of mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further action. l484E-H] c Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, [1977) 4 SCC 459, refer- red to. 1.2 As regards the contention that Cr .P .C. is not applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the High Court rightly held thats. 32 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945, on which reliance was placed, should be guided by the spirit of the Code and it will be proper to throw out a complaint if there was inordinate or D undue delay, which was not explained. [4830-E) State of Punjab v. Sa_rwan Singh, [1981) 3 SCR 349, referred to. 1.3 Statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. They shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused E from unnecessary harassment. They also save the accused from the risk of having'to face trial at a time when bis evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosecution. A bar bas been prescribed under section 468 Cr .P .C. and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it iu the facts and circumstalices of this case. [484A-C] F G H Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharaj Lal Chopra, [1978) 2 SCC 403, relied on. Kathamuthu v. Balammal, [1987) Crl. L.J. 360; Ghansham Dass v. Sham Sunder Lal, [1982) Crl. L.J. 1717 and Vijay K1tmar Agarwal/a v. State of Assam, [1986) l GLR 421, referred to. 2. In the instant case, the broad facts that emerge are that the alleged offence took place in November, 1976, and until the High Court's order in August, 1987 no investigation bad taken place. The offence is of rash and negligent driving. It is, as such, neither a grave and heinous offence nor an offence against the community as such, .. S. GOPAL v. UNION TERRITORY [MUKHARJI I.I 479 though all criminal offences are crimes against society. It is not neces- A sary in the facts and circumstances of the case to deeide, whether· cogni- zance was properly taken, whether the extension of-period of limitation under.section 473 must precede taking of the cognizance.oft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.