Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 140 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. KEWAL RAM CHAUHAN

2003-06-06

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Cr. M.P. (M) No. 424 of 2003 Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Leave to appeal granted. The application is disposed of. The Criminal Appeal be registered. Cr. Appeal No. 257 of 2003 Admit. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 3.12.2002. 3. It appears respondent, hereinafter referred to "as accused" was prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (4), Shimla for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Prosecution case was: Complainant Lachhi Ram pledged a pair of gold "Sunangan", about ten tolas in weight, with the accused for Rs. 4,000. It was agreed to between the accused and the complainant that accused will not claim interest for a period of 2-3 years and as and when the amount of loan was returned, the ornaments would be returned back to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 3,975 till 1974-75. Thereafter, when complainant claimed his ornaments from the accused, the accused demanded Rs. 4,000 as principle, Rs. 4,000 as interest and another Rs. 2,000 as commission. The complainant then made complaint(s) to various authorities, and a case was registered against the accused, for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police Station, Theog, in terms of FIR No. 373 of 96, on 30.11.1996. The learned trial Magistrate, on the appreciation of evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000. 5. Dis-satisfied, the accused carried an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, who allowed the appeal by his impugned judgment holding that the prosecution launched against the accused, by the police, was barred by the period of limitation, under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Dis-satisfied, the State has filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent. 8. It is to be noticed that the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 9. 7. I have heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent. 8. It is to be noticed that the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 9. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates, bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. 10. Section 468 is reproduced for the convenience: "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.—(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 3. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences, which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be the most severe punishment." (Emphasis given) 11. It may be seen that the period of limitation in the present case, would be three years, as the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years. 12. Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for computation of the period of limitation. Section 469 reads: "469. It may be seen that the period of limitation in the present case, would be three years, as the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years. 12. Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for computation of the period of limitation. Section 469 reads: "469. Commencement of the period of limitation.—(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,— (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offences comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded." 13. It may be noticed that the period of limitation shall start running from the date of the offence. Under clause (b) of Section 469 of the Code if the commission of the offence is not known to the person aggrieved, or police officer then the period of limitation shall start running from the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to police officer, whichever is earlier. 14. It appears, the learned Public Prosecutor raised an argument before the learned Sessions Judge, that the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence, therefore, no period of limitation can be said to be prescribed for such an offence. The submission was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 15. It is admitted position that it was in the year 1974-75 that the accused denied to return the pledged ornaments to the complainant, who insisted for payment of the amount of pledge and interest of Rs. 4,000 along with Rs. 2,000 as commission. Therefore, the period of limitation would start running from that date itself. 15. It is admitted position that it was in the year 1974-75 that the accused denied to return the pledged ornaments to the complainant, who insisted for payment of the amount of pledge and interest of Rs. 4,000 along with Rs. 2,000 as commission. Therefore, the period of limitation would start running from that date itself. Even if the period of limitation is calculated from the year 1975, the prosecution would be barred in the year 1996 by more than seven years. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be against the law. 17. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.