Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 165 (AP)

G. Anjaiah v. State Of A. P.

2000-03-06

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in C. C. No. 394/99 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. K. Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even according the version of the prosecution, as stated in the charge sheet, the inspection of the petitioner s meter was conducted on 14-7-1994 and it was during this inspection that the theft of electricity in respect of the electricity connection of the petitioner at his shop was detected and the charge sheet has been taken cognizance of by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 20-9-1999 which is beyond the period of limitation enacted in Section 468, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) THE learned public prosecutor, however, seeks to contend that the charge sheet itself was filed on 25-11-1995 and for some reason the charge sheet was returned to the Investigating Officer and there was some delay in resubmitting the charge sheet and ultimately taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) EVEN assuming it to be so, it is pertinent to point that under Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. the limitation prescribed is in respect of taking of cognizance of an offence and not in respect of filing of the charge sheet or the complaint. In view of this, even if charge sheet has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation contemplated under Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. , the crucial question is as to on what date the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. In this case, indisputably, the learned Magistrate seems to have taken cognizance of the offence in question on 20-9-1999 which was clearly beyond three years from the date of inspection of the meter in respect of which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted. Inasmuch as the theft of electricity is said to have been detected during the said inspection, the alleged theft can be referable only to the date of inspection or the period anterior to it. Inasmuch as the theft of electricity is said to have been detected during the said inspection, the alleged theft can be referable only to the date of inspection or the period anterior to it. The offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and the one under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act is punishable with imprisonment up to two years. Taking the longer sentence of 3 years, the limitation prescribed under Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. for such offences would be three years from the date of commission of offence. In this case as the offence is said to have been committed on 14-7-1994, the offence ought to have been taken cognizance on or before 13-7-1997. But in this case, admittedly, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence only on 20-9-1999. Taking any view of the matter, there is no escape from holding that in this case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act beyond the period of three years. In this case neither any attempt seems to have been made on behalf of the prosecution to explain the delay nor the Court has considered any circumstance justifying the delay. As such the question of extending the period of limitation under Section 473, Cr. P. C. does not arise. ( 6 ) IN the result, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is in contravention of Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. and as such the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. This petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 394/99 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed. Petition allowed.