Ram Pratap vs State of M.P.

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant Ram Pratap has moved the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings of the Case No. 6045/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, especially the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the revisionary Court i.e. Second Additional Judge to the VIth Additional Judge, Sagar. The facts of the case in short is that a charge sheet for offence punishable u/s 304A of I.P.C. was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.12.2006 against the applicant. On 14.2.2007 the charges were framed for offence punishable u/s 304A of I.P.C. On 30.11.2007, an application was moved by the applicant u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. that the charge sheet was time barred because as due intimation was received by the Police Officer in the midnight of 27th and 28th November, 2003 and therefore, the charge sheet should have been produced before expiry of the limitation. The application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed by the applicant before the revisionary Court was also dismissed.

Some more facts relating to the case are that on 27.11.2003, at about 9.00 p.m. in the night some work was going on in the house of the applicant with help of Contractor Ghasi Ram. During that work one labourer touched with the 33 KV cable line, which was above the roof and therefore, he (Mohan) had expired. A merg intimation was lodged on 28.11.2003. After keeping the matter for enquiry, Police Station Cantt., Sagar registered the case on 23.11.2006 and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

According to the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance in the case was three years because the offence u/s 304A of I.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment of two years. In the provision of Section 469 of Cr.P.C. the method of computation of limitation is mentioned. In this context the provisions of section 469(1)(b)(c) of Cr.P.C. may be read:

Commencement of the period of limitation--(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,--

(a)....

(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

(c) where is it 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.

Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that intimation of crime was given to the Police on 28.11.2003 but, the Police kept the case pending for enquiry for three years. In provisions of Section 470, 471 and 472 of I.P.C. exclusion of time is given in certain cases. According to the provisions of Section 472 of Cr.P.C. if there is a continuing offence then a fresh period of limitation begins. The present case is not of continuing offence and therefore, the provision of Section 472 of Cr.P.C. was not applicable in the case. Similarly, no application for condonation of delay was filed by the Police and therefore, the provision of Section 472 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case.

Some exclusion of time is granted in Section 470 of the Cr.P.C. but, if the present matter is considered in the light of that provision then, it would be apparent that the investigation officer could not show as why he kept the case pending for enquiry for three years. It was clear to the Investigation Officer from the very beginning that the deceased died due to electrocution and he got the effect of current from a live line of 33 K.V., which was going above the roof of the said house. Under such circumstances, the exclusion of time given in Section 470 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case. The State has not taken an exclusion of time given in Section 471 of the Cr.P.C. that the charge sheet could not be filed within the limitation because the Court was closed on that date. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the Police Constable, had informed on 28.11.2003 that the crime was committed and therefore, looking to the limitation of three years for filing of the charge sheet, it should have been filed up to 27.11.2006. It would be apparent from the order of the revisionary Court and the Trial Court that the charge sheet was filed on 14.12.2006, which was delayed by at least 17 days. Since no application for condonation of delay was filed before the trial Court then certainly the trial Court proceeded with the case in an erroneous manner. It is true that the trial Court itself cannot recall its own order because the trial Court took cognizance in the case but, such illegality can be seen by the revisionary Court and therefore, certainly it can be interfered by this Court u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the charge sheet was filed with delay of at least 17 days and therefore, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the applicant cannot be prosecuted in the matter because the charge sheet was barred by limitation.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the charge sheet was filed after completion of the period of limitation and therefore, it was barred by limitation. Under such circumstances, the applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present case which was barred by limitation. It is a good case in which the inherent powers of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised. Consequently, the application of the applicant Ram Pratap is hereby allowed. The trial pending before the CJM, Sagar at Serial No. 6045/2006 is hereby set aside. The effect would be that all the accused persons of that case shall be deemed discharged in the case. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.