Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

The petitioner in appeal has been convicted and sentenced under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was a cashier in Bhangali Khurd Cooperative Society and in November/December, 1972, he misappropriated Rs. 43,300/. The matter came to the notice of the authorities and Shri Sohan Singh, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies got a case registered against the petitioner. The Police of Ghall Khurd presented the challan on February 11, 1981, against the petitioner.

Shri Sarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not argued on merits and has stated that conviction of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law, as his prosecution is barred by time. He has placed reliance on State Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054.

According to the learned counsel, the embezzlement in the present case took place in 1972 and the matter was reported to the police vide report Exhibit PW 10/A which is dated November 6, 1974, and challan was presented on February 11, 1981. The petitioner is convicted under Section 406 IPC and maximum sentence under Section 406 IPC is three years. Section 468 prescribes three years limitation for the offence where the punishment is not more than three years. Therefore, for an offence under Section 406 IPC, the limitation to launch prosecution will be three years. In Sarwan Singh''s case (supra), it was observed as under :

"The object of Criminal Procedure Code is putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law of take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation."

In the above mentioned case, the embezzlement had taken place in 1972, detected in 1973, but challan was presented in October, 1976, and the Court found prosecution to be barred by limitation. In the present case the matter was reported to police on November 6, 1974, after detection of the embezzlement but sill challan was presented on February 11, 1981. The prosecution is clearly time barred.

The result is that this revision petition succeeds and is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him.