STATE OF PUNJAB versus SARWAN SINGH

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 02-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
349 
STATE. OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SARWAN SINGH 
April 2, 1981 
[ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Bar of /imitation Under the statute-Whether the entire proceedings instituted 
after period of limitation including the conviction and sentence becomes non-est-
Criminal Procedure Code· 1973 (Act II of 1974) Scope of-Section 468, explained. 
Based on the audit report dated January 5, 1973 revealing an embezzlement 
having been committed by the Respondent on 22.8.1972, a challan was presented 
against him on the 13th October, 1976 under Sec. 406 Penal Code for misappro-
priating the amounts deposited with him as a Cashier of the Tanda Badha Co-ope,· 
rati ve Society, district Patiala. The Trial Court convicted the respondent under 
;;. section 406 Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year 
and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand. The respondents' appeal to the High 
Court was allowed accepting the plea of bar of limitation under section 468 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the State appeal after obtaining special 
leave of the Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : (i) Taking any of these dates, namely, 22nd August 1972, (Commi-
ssion of embezzlement), and 5th January 1973 (date of detection of embezzlement) 
the prosecution was barred by limitation under sections 468(2) (a) and 469(b) of 
th Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence of 
the respondent as also the entire proceedings culminating in his conviction 
became non-est. [350 F, 351 G] 
(ii) The object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limita-
tion on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a 
Jong time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to pre-
vent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecu-
tions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to sub-
serve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in 
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance 
that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private party must abide by the 
letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limita-
tion. [351 E-F) 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 60 
of 1981. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
8-4-1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 342 of 1980. 
M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant. 
T. S. Arora for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL Au, J. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 8th 
April, 1980 by which the respondent Sarwan Singh was acquitted of 
the charge under s. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 
It appears that 
the respondent-accused was charged under s. 406 of the Penal Code 
for misappropriating the amounts deposited with him as a cashier 
of the Tanda Badha Co-operative Society, District Patiala. 
The 
challan was presented against the accused on the 13th October, 
1976. The trial court after recording the evidence acquitted the 
respondent of the charge under s. 408 but {convicted the respondent 
of the charge under s. 406 and sentenced him to rigorous imprison-
ment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 
The respondent 
then filed the appeal to the High Court which allowed the appeal 
and acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the prose-
cution launched against the respondent was 
clearly barred by 
limitation under ss. 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The High Court was of the view that the charge-sheet clearly shows 
that the embezzlement is said to have been committed on 22nd 
August, 1972 and the audit report, through which the offence was 
detected is dated 5th January, 1973. Taking any of these dates, 
the prosecution was barred by limitation under s. 468 (2) (c) of the 
Code. In our opinion, the High Court has taken the correct view 
of the law. 
Section 468(2) (c) may be extracted thus : 
Sec. 468 (2) (c) : 
"three years, if the offence is punishable with im-
prisonment for a term exceeding one year but n0t exceed-
ing three years." 
:::( 
PUNJAB v. SARWAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.) 
351 
Section 469 (1) (a) and (6) may be extracted thus : 
"(a) on the date of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.