9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 519 - SC - Indian LawsWheteher the complaint was not hit by limitation? Held that - Appeal allowed. The learned Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under Section 418 IPC. The punishment provided for said offence is imprisonment for three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468(2)(c) is 3 years. That being so, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Section 473 of the Code provides for extension of period in certain cases. This power can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. As noted above, there was not even a reference that the letter dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of complainant dated 24.11.2001.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the issuance of summons by the Judicial Magistrate. 2. Allegations of offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. 3. Validity of the complaint under Section 418 IPC. 4. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Limitation period for taking cognizance under Section 468 of the Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Issuance of Summons: The appellants challenged the legality of the summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in complaint case no.1613 (C) of 2002. The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that the appellants committed offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate found sufficient material to proceed under Section 418 IPC and issued summons. The High Court upheld this issuance, which the appellants contested on grounds of procedural and factual discrepancies. 2. Allegations of Offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC: The complainant alleged that the appellants deceived him by appointing him as a Field Officer instead of an Area Manager, as initially promised. The complaint stated that the appellants assured the complainant that he would be appointed as an Area Manager, but this did not materialize, leading to allegations of criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. 3. Validity of the Complaint under Section 418 IPC: The Judicial Magistrate decided to proceed under Section 418 IPC, which deals with cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to the person deceived. The appellants argued that no foundation for proceeding under Section 418 IPC was made out and that the complaint was stale and beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 4. Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The High Court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code was contested. The appellants argued that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law and that the High Court failed to consider the guiding principles for exercising such powers. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, and it should be exercised sparingly and with caution. 5. Limitation Period for Taking Cognizance under Section 468 of the Code: Section 468 of the Code bars taking cognizance of an offence after the lapse of the period of limitation. The period of limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years is three years. The complaint was filed in 2002 for alleged breaches occurring between 1995 and 2001. The appellants argued that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the Judicial Magistrate did not refer to Section 468 or Section 473, which allows for the extension of the limitation period in certain cases. Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the complainant had not come to court with clean hands and failed to explain the inaction between 1995 and 2001. The High Court erred in holding that the complaint was not barred by limitation and did not consider the guiding principles for exercising inherent powers under Section 482. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed the proceedings initiated by the complaint, allowing the appeal.
|
