9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain directing the complainant to approach the Trial Magistrate for the purposes of seeking extension of period of limitation. The complainant is held to have explained the delay in filing the complaint which required extension. The complaint is, therefore, held to be within time and the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged on this ground. Appeal dismissed. - Appeal (crl.) 555 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2000 - K.T. Thomas R.P. Sethi,JJ. JUDGMENT SETHI,J. The criminal complaint under Section 5(4) read with Sections 5(2) (3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act ) was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by the Union of India through Deputy Super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of the complainant, the complaint filed against the petitioner was held to be within time. Mr.Vijay Bahuguna, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that as no sanction or consent was provided to be taken from the Government under Section 13(3) of the Act, the complaint admittedly filed after the period of limitation was required to be dismissed and the accused discharged in terms of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not urge any other point. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. D.D. Bhargava [1968 (1) SCR 394]. Shri Kirit N. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General, defending the impugned judgment has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances as specified therein. Section 13 provides that no court other than that of the Magistrate of First Class specially empowered in that behalf, shall try any offence under the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 13, reads: No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Appropriate Government or some officer empowered by the Appropriate Government in this behalf Sub-section (3) provides that cognizance of offence under the Act can be taken only upon complaint which is (a) filed by order of appropriate government; or (b) filed under authority from the appropriate government; or (c) by some officer empowered by the appropriate government. No consent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government for institution of any prosecution of an offence and not obtaining of orders or authority or naming a person for the purpose of filing the complaint. This Court in Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. s case (Supra) while dealing with Section 6 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 which provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised in that behalf by the Central Government, by general or special order, held that the principles applicable to cases requiring sanction have no application to filing of complaints under the Act. Section 6 of that Act only insisted that complaint was to be made in writing and must have been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under authority from the appropriate government or by an officer empowered by such Government. If the intention of the Legislature was to have the section in two parts, one dealing with the grant of consent or sanction by way of order and the other part dealing with the authority of the person to file the complaint, in that case after the words made by order of , there should not have been a comma and the word or . In that event for the word or the Legislature must have used the word and and omitted the comma. The High Court was not justified in reading between the lines to hold: ....that the requirement in Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act amounts to taking of previous consent or sanction of the appropriate Government. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was entitled to extension of period of limitation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. No useful purpose would be served by again directing the complainant to approach the Trial Magistrate for the purposes of seeking extension of period of limitation. The complainant is held to have explained the delay in filing the complaint which required extension. The complaint is, therefore, held to be within time and the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged on this ground. During the arguments it was pointed out that as various complaints filed after obtaining sanction from the Central Government and the courts having given the exclusion of the period in terms of Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 470 Cr.P.C., this judgment of ours may amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
