Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1566 (AP)

O. R. Alavi v. Government Of A. P.

2001-11-30

R.M.BAPAT

body2001
R. M. BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 126/1995 pending on the file of Judicial magistrate Of First Class, Huzurnagar, nalgonda. He along with A-2 was initially prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 408, 467 and 420 I. P. C. The offences are alleged to have been committed in between 9-6-1990 and 3-8-1990. Charge- sheet was filed on 29-1-1995. ( 2 ) BEFORE taking cognizance of the offences in question, accused persons filed a crl. M. P. No. 2267/1995 for discharging them under Section 239 Cr. P. C. The matter was heard by the learned Judge on merits and he came to the conclusion that by reading the averments made in the charge- sheet, no offence punishable under Sections 467, 420 and 408 I. P. C. was disclosed. However, the learned Judge held that the facts on record would reveal that the accused persons were liable to be punished for offences punishable under Sections 403 and 406 I. P. . C. The learned Judge discharged the accused of the offences punishable under sections 467, 420 and 408 I. P. C. and took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 403 and 406 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE present petition is filed by A-l raising contention that the charge-sheet was filed on 29-1-1995. The maximum punishment provided under Section 403 i. P. C. is two years and under Section 406 is three years. Therefore, cognizance of the offences under these sections was taken beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the c. C. has to be quashed on the ground of limitation under Section 468 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) BY looking to the averments made in the criminal petition as well as the discharge order made by the learned Magistrate, this court is of the considered view that the prosecuting agency filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and A-2 under wrong sections i. e. , Sections 467, 420 and 408 i. P. C. , and, therefore, the accused persons were discharged on facts and the averments made in the charge-sheet. The learned magistrate came to the conclusion that offences under Sections 403 and 406 are disclosed against the accused persons and, therefore, cognizance was taken only of those offences. The learned magistrate came to the conclusion that offences under Sections 403 and 406 are disclosed against the accused persons and, therefore, cognizance was taken only of those offences. ( 5 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted at the Bar that initially charge-sheet was filed under Sections 467, 420 and 408 I. P. C. for which punishment provided is more than three years and, therefore, it is not barred by limitation. ( 6 ) THIS Court is not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Public prosecutor. When the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence was disclosed under Sections 467, 420 and 408 i. P. C. , it means that those offences were not committed. Under those circumstances, the offences with which the accused were charged subsequently have been deemed to have been committed on the date of the offences in between 9-6-1990 and 3-8-1990. ( 7 ) NOW the point that arises is as to what would be the starting point for limitation in such cases i. e. , whether from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of filing charge-sheet. This Court is of the considered view that the date of commission of offence has to be taken into consideration while deciding the period of limitation. The statute never intended to leave such discretion at the hands of prosecuting agency and to make it file charge-sheet even after many years of the commission of offence so as to deprive accused of seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 468 Cr. P. C. on the ground of the offence being beyond the period of limitation. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the offences were committed between 1-6-1990 and 3-8-1990. The offences committed are punishable under Sections 403 and 406 I. P. C. Charge- sheet might have been filed after about five years of the date of offence. The date of filing charge-sheet cannot be taken to be the starting point for limitation. Under these circumstances this Court holds that the offences alleged against the petitioner and a-2 are beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the petition is allowed and C. C. No. 126/1995 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, nalgonda District is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Under these circumstances this Court holds that the offences alleged against the petitioner and a-2 are beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the petition is allowed and C. C. No. 126/1995 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, nalgonda District is hereby quashed against the petitioner. ( 9 ) THIS Court has already observed that along with the petitioner one more accused (A-2) was prosecuted in C. C. No. 126/1995. Though he has not filed petition for quashing the C. C. , this Court is of the view that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow prosecution to go on against him. Therefore, this Court quashes C. C. No. 126/1995 against A-2 also.