LexSURINDER MOHAN VIKAL versus ASCHARAJ LAL CHOPRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 434 SURINDER MOHAN VIKAL v. 'ASCHARAJ LAL CHOPRA February 28, 1978 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Linlitation for taking cognizance of certain ofjences--Cri111inal Procedu.re Code (Act 2 of 1974), 1973,-S. 468 r/w. Sections 469(a), 470 & 473- Legislative policy behind the statute of limitation. Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974), 1973 bars taking_ cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Under sub"6. (2) of s. 468 the period of limitatiO'Il shall be (a) six months, if the offence is punlshable \Vith fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is pu'llishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and (c) three years, if the offooce is punishable \'\»ith i111prisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The appel1ant, while working as General Secretary of the Celfltral B1•1nk ot' India Ernployees Union, Ludhiana, filed a crimi~al complaint on 15.3-1972 against 1espondents Ascharaj Lal Chopra, who \Vas his predecessor in otticc· rutd also again~t one Amreek Singh a treasurer for the commission of a•n offence under ss. 406/420 IPC usjng the words viz., "criminal intention" und "fraur!u- lently and with u dishonest intention'' etc. The trial Court convicted them oo 11-2-1975 but the First Appellate Court by its order dated 1-4-1975 acquitted them, which was affirmed by the 'High Court by its judgment dated 15-5-1975. Respondent Ascharaj Lal, therefore, filed a complaint under s. 500 I.P .C. against the <11ppellant on l 1-2-1976. The l\fagistrate examined the plaintiff and issued a summons to the appeila'flt on 15-9-1976. The appellant moved the High Conrt under s. 482 of th_e Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the l\.fagistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence against him, and the High Conrt rejected it. Allo\ving the appeal by special leave, the Court liELD : 1. The statutes of limita.tion have legislative policy behind them. They shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary hanissment and from the risk of facing trial at a time \Vhen his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the· pro&ccu- tor. [438 B-C] 2. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code not only r&ises bar of limita~ tion but also pre-scribes the period thereof. The question when the period of I.imitation could be said to commence lies within the purview of s. 469. Sub-s. (1) of s. 469 specifically provides that the period of limitation prescribed in s. 468, in rela'tion to an offence, shall commence inter alia "on the date of the offence". [436 F-G] 3. It is an essential requirement of sub-s. (1) of s. 470 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that the person who seeks its benefit should be able to establish that he was "prosecuting" another prosecution in one Court or the other referred to in the sub-section. [437 Gl 4. Jn the instant case, (a) the date of thei offence was Jvlarch 15, 1972 \Vhen defamatory complaint was filed in the Court oe the Magistrate and that was the starting point for the purposes of calculating the three years' limitation provided bys. 468; (b) the complaint under s. 500 I.P.C. was filed on 11-2-1976 much after the expiry of three years limitation prescribed for that offence. It was therefore, not possible for the Court of the Magistrate to take cognizance of ihe offence after the expiry of the period of limitation : (c) the question of \. ' ,... 1 ' • ,. > , • • I • 4 - t 1 ' s. M. VIKAL v. A. L. CHOPRA (Shinghal, J.) 435 "'cause of action., contemplated in s. 469 ( 1) (c) could not arise as the co•ntro- A versy iel,;,ted to '·the commission of' an offence" and (d) the provision of sub- s. ( 1) of s. 470 cannot avail the responde•nt as his case, was not so. He did not claim the benefit of s. 473 either. [436 H, 437 A-C, JJ8 A] CRIWNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1972. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. 2-3-77 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 5979-M of 1977). S. C. Agarual, Swaraj Kaushal & S. C. Patel for th~ Appellant. B D. Mookerjee, B. M. Srivastva and Sarwa Mitter for the Respon- dent. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SmNGHAL, J.-This appeal by Special leave has been filed by accused Surindcr Mohan Vikal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 2, 1977, rejecting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.