Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 380 (CAL)

Tapash Sinha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-04-08

ARUNABHA BASU

body2008
JUDGMENT:- (1) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State. (2) IN spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the O. P. No. 2. (3) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in this case charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 498a/406 of the I. P. C. and as the cognizance is taken by the learned Court below long after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr. P. C., the entire proceeding cannot continue and liable to be quashed. (4) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners drew my attention to the recital on the petition of complaint on which direction was passed by the learned Court below in terms of the provision under Section 153 (3) of the cr. P. C. directing the O. C. of the police station to register a case and to initiate investigation. The said direction was passed on 10. 9.01. The learned advocate for the petitioner further drew my attention to the copy of the F. I. R. available at page 14 of this application which shows that on receipt of the petition of complaint with the direction passed by the learned magistrate, a case being F. I. R. No. 70 of 2005 dated 15.1.05 was registered at Barrackpore P. S. and investigation was initiated by the police. It further appears that on conclusion of investigation report in terms of Section 173 of the Cr. P. C. was submitted and cognizance was taken by the leaned Court below on 9.10.05. So, the cognizance for the offence under Section 498a/ 406 of the I. P. C. was taken long after the expiry of the period of limitation. Under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. however, the learned Magistrate was empowered to extend the period of limitation in the given circumstances of a particular case in terms of Section 473 of the Cr. P. C. But in this case, while taking cognizance no such exercise was at ali adopted by the learned court below. On the contrary, when the matter was brought to the notice of the learned Court below that cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate was bad in law as the same taken after expiry of the period of limitation. P. C. But in this case, while taking cognizance no such exercise was at ali adopted by the learned court below. On the contrary, when the matter was brought to the notice of the learned Court below that cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate was bad in law as the same taken after expiry of the period of limitation. The learned Court below rejected the prayer only on the ground, "generally it is to be remembered that while considering the limitation period in cases under Section 498a of the I. P. C., the interest of justice is to be looked into". (5) I fail to appreciate the reasons behind such order because the interest of justice is squarely applicable both to the complainant as well as to the accused. A specific plea was raised by the learned Court below that the present lis cannot continue as the same is barred by limitation. Limitation which is prescribed under the specific provisions of the Cr. P. C., must be rigidly followed by the learned Court below because it is the intention of the legislation that in connection with certain cases there must be a specific period within which cognizance must be taken by the Court dealing with the offences. When law has prescribed limitation and when a case is lapsed due to operation of the law of limitation, the Court will to have any other option save and except to pass order in terms of the provisions of the law of limitation. Exception to the general rule will be applicable only in cases falling under Section 473 but without doing that a criminal trial cannot continue which is barred by the limitation. (6) IN this view of the matter, further continuation of the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 2597 of 2005 arising out of Barrackpore P. S. Case no. 70 of 2005 now pending before the learned J. M., 2nd Court at barrackpore will be an abuse of the process of the Court and the proceeding is quashed. (7) THE revisional application is allowed and as the revisional application is allowed, no separate order need be passed on the application being CRAN 978 of 2008 which is also disposed of along with the revisional application. (7) THE revisional application is allowed and as the revisional application is allowed, no separate order need be passed on the application being CRAN 978 of 2008 which is also disposed of along with the revisional application. (8) CRIMINAL section is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Court below as urgently as possible (9) CRIMINAL section is directed to supply urgent certified copy of this order to the learned Advocate for the petitioners within three days.