Ramasami Achary vs State

Maheswaran, J.—This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 460 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Madurai.

The petitioner was charged for offences under Ss. 420 and 406, I.P.C., before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai in C.C. No. 460 of

1986. The allegations are that in the year 1974, the Complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 on a promissory note from the petitioner and

as security for that loan, he had also deposited title deeds of the property worth about Rs. 1,000 and also certain pieces of jewellery. In August,

1983, the complainant wanted to discharge the loan, but the petitioner told him that the jewels have been sold and that he could manufacture and

give him new jewellery. The complainant did not believe this. He gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, B.3 Police Station, Madurai, on

2nd March, 1984. As nothing was done by the Police, he give a petition to the Collector who directed him to give a complaint to the concerned

police. After investigation, the Respondent Police have filed the charge sheet. The case of the petitioner is that no case under Ss. 20 and 406,

I.P.C., is made out as it was a pledge of his jewels and as there was no inducement and as there is nothing in the complaint to show that any

deception was practised. Even on the face of the complaint, there is no cheating. The petitioner also would say that there was long delay in filing

the complaint. His next contention is that the complaint, in so far as the charge under S. 406, I.P.C., is concerned, is barred by limitation and the

court cannot take cognizance of the same which is barred.

A reading of the complaint shows that the complainant has deposited certain jewels as security for the loan. The schedule to the petition

describes the jewels that were deposited. That shows that the complainant has deposited more than 19� sovereigns of gold jewels. It is rather

curious that the complainant should deposit 19� sovereigns of jewels for a loan of only Rs. 6.000 borrowed on a promissory note. The

borrowing was in the year 1974. The Complainant would also say in his complaint that he has not taken any receipt for deposit of these jewels

which again is rather unusual. The allegations in the petition do not disclose that the complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver the jewels.

Secondly, the borrowing was in the year 1974. If it is a case of a voluntary deposit of the jewels as security for the repayment of a loan, there

could not be any cheating within the meaning of S. 420, I.P.C.

The only question now to be considered is as regards the charge under S. 406, I.P.C. The complaint shows that the complainant wanted to

discharge the loan and for that purpose approached the petitioner who, in August 1983, informed him that be has sold the jewels, but would make

fresh jewels. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that that information was given to the complainant on the last day

of August 1983, the complaint would be barred by limitation as the charge sheet in this case was filed on 26.9.1986. What was pointed out by the

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is not the date of filing of the complaint that would decide the question of limitation, but it is the date on

which the court takes cognizance of the matter that has to be taken note of. The Magistrate will be deemed to have taken cognizance of the

offence if he applies his mind for that purpose. In this case, the Magistrate should be deemed to have taken cognizance of the matter on the date

when charge sheet was filed namely on 26.9.86. That apart, from the facts narrated already, one is not able to gather the ingredients of & 406,

I.P.C. For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.