9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (10) TMI 632 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code apply to delay in instituting the prosecution or to delay in taking cognizance? Held that - If this interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code is to be applied to the facts of the case then we notice that the offence was detected on 5.3.1999 and the complaint was filed before the court on 3.3.2000 which was well within the period of limitation therefore the fact that the court took cognizance of the offence only on 25.3.1999 about 25 days after it was filed would not make the complaint barred by limitation. Thus it is not necessary to go to the next question argued on behalf of the appellants that the court below was in error in invoking Section 473 of the Code for extending the period of limitation. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Challenge to the judgment and order made by the High Court of Judicature: Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad - Cognizance of alleged offence barred by limitation under Section 469 of the Code - Competency of the Drug Inspector to lodge the complaint - Applicability of the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh - Period of limitation for filing the complaint and taking cognizance - Interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code regarding limitation for taking cognizance Analysis: 1. The appellants challenged the judgment of the High Court, arguing that the cognizance of the alleged offence was barred by limitation under Section 469 of the Code. They contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance based on a complaint by a Drug Inspector not authorized under the relevant notification. However, the High Court rejected these objections, holding that the Notification applied to the entire State of A.P., allowing the complainant Drug Inspector to lodge the complaint. The High Court also accepted the prosecution's argument that the complaint was filed within the limitation period under Section 469, and any delay was condonable under Section 473 due to the time taken for obtaining sanction. 2. The appellants further argued that the High Court erred in interpreting the Notification, contending that it applied only to the Telangana area of A.P. and not to Vijayawada. However, the Supreme Court, after perusing the Notification, agreed with the High Court's interpretation. The Court held that the Notification empowered all Drugs Inspectors in A.P. to act under the Central Act of 1954, indicating its applicability throughout the State. The Court emphasized that a narrow interpretation restricting the Notification's operation would defeat its public purpose, thus affirming the High Court's finding on the Notification's applicability. 3. Regarding the period of limitation for filing the complaint and taking cognizance, the appellants argued that the bar of limitation applied to the Magistrate taking cognizance beyond the prescribed period. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the Code was for filing the complaint or initiating prosecution, not for the court's act of taking cognizance. The Court cited statutory provisions and legal principles to support its interpretation, concluding that the complaint filed within the limitation period could not be invalidated by the court taking cognizance after the period. 4. Based on the above interpretation, the Court found that the complaint in this case was filed within the limitation period, even though the Magistrate took cognizance after a delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no need to address the appellants' arguments regarding the extension of the limitation period or the case law they relied upon. In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the applicability of the Notification to the entire State of A.P., the timely filing of the complaint within the limitation period, and the interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code regarding limitation for filing complaints rather than for taking cognizance.
|
