Muni Lal vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dawan, J.

In this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Code) Muni Lal has sought quashing of the proceedings in case First Information Report No. 343 dated 23.9.1978, under Ss. 411/379. Indian Penal Code.

Without going into the details of the matter in substance, the allegations against the petitioner amount to this: That in the year 1974, the shop of Rukhmani Devi was on rent with Jagdish Parshad complainant and this shop was given in the name of a Dharamsala by its owner. In order to annex the land under the shop in question in the Dharamsala, Khushi Ram and Ram Partap got that shop demolished and removed the articles lying there and kept the same with one Ganga Ram in his godown on rent. It is alleged that those articles were sold by Ganga Ram to Muni Lal petitioner in the year 1978. On 21.9.1978, Assistant SubInspector Upkar Singh recovered some articles from the possession of the petitioner. On 23.9.1978 Jagdish Parshad appeared before the police and identified the same to be owned by him and consequently a case was registered against the petitioner on the same day under S. 411/379, Indian Penal Code, at the instance of the complainant. After the completion of the investigation the challan was instituted in the Court on 3.3.1979. The plea taken by the petitioner in the trial Court was that since the theft had taken place on 1.1.1974, the period of limitation being 3 years, came to an end on 1.1.1977, whereas the challan was presented in the Court on 3.3.1979 and as such, the challan being timebarred, no cognizance thereof could be taken. That plea prevailed with the trial Court and the challan was held to be timebarred and the accused were accordingly discharged. The revision filed by the complainant against the said order of the trial Court was accepted by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on June 9, 1980, holding that the challan instituted on 3.3.1979 under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, was within limitation. Hence this petition.

The ground on which the proceedings are required to be quashed is simple and precise, the same being that the prosecution of the petitioner was barred by the provisions of S. 468 of the Code. The material portion of S. 468 reads thus :

"468(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be :

(a) * * * * *

(b) * * * * *

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

The other section which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition is S. 469 which reads thus :

"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 offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or

* * * * *"

Undoubtedly, the offence under S. 411, Indian Penal Code for which the petitioner is being proceeded against, falls within the ambit of Clause (c) of subsec. (2) of S. 468 of the Code, it is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 3 years. S. 469 of the Code further stipulates that the period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence on the date of the offence or 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 offence came to the knowledge of such person or the police officer. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the commission of the offence was not known either to Jagdish Parshad complainant or to any police officer and it became known to the complainant on 23.9.1978 when he identified the case property to be owned by him, which was recovered by the Assistant SubInspector Upkar Singh on 21.9.1978. Undoubtedly in view of the provisions of Clause (b) of subsection (1) of S. 469 of the Code, the offence under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, could be taken cognizance within 3 years from 21.9.1978 when the property was recovered from the petitioner by the police or atleast on 23.9.1978 when the case was registered. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge was right, in setting aside the order of the trial Court whereby the challan presented by the police was held to be timebarred.

In any case, before involving the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code, the petitioner is called upon to show some abuse of the process of the Court or a case of gross injustice which is apparent on the record. No such thing is indicated in the present case. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quite just and proper and there is no occasion to quash the same. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 16.5.1983, who shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.