9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure Code, as on the date of cognizance for such minor offence the provisions of Section 468 gets attracted. The short facts Necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the two respondents herein were challaned for offences under Sections 468. 420. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, The offence in question was alleged to have been committed in the year 1983 by forging the receipts under the `Scab Control Scheme, 1983'. The charge-sheet was submitted in November, 1987 and cognizance was taken in December, 1987. Charges were framed under Sections 468. 420. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration by a larger Bench of three Judges and that is how the matter has been placed before us Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides period of limitation for taking cognizance in sub-section (2) thereof and puts an embargo on the Court from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation under sub-section (I) thereof. Sub-section (3), however which was introduced by way of an Amendment Act of 1978, provides that when accused is tried for several offences, the period of limitation in relation to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment would be the period of limitation for taking cognizance. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, then the period of limitation provided is three years for taking cognizance. Sub-section (3) of Section 468 which was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978, provides that in relation to offences which may be tried together, the period of limitation shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more or most severe punishment. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 468 makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance in Section 468 is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved. This being the position, in the case in hand, when the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision will be of no application and the High Court committed error in relying upon the aforesaid decision to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand the cognizance itself was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code can also be taken recourse to in the present case for finding out the commencement of the period of limitation. But since in respect of the offences providing punishment for more than three years no period of limitation has been provided under Section 468, question of examining the applicability of Section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the case in hand does not arise. Section 473 confers power on the Court taking cognizance after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the matter we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error in holding that the conviction of the two respondents under Section 417 would be barred as on the date of taking cognizance the Court could not have taken cognizance for the said offence. Needless to mention, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that if an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of a minor offence if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed. In view of the observations made by a Bench of two Judges of this Court, while this appeal was placed before Their Lordships, for hearing that the decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not think it sufficient in the interest of justice to condone the delay inasmuch as an accused committing of an offence under Section 498A should not be lightly let of. We have already indicated in the earlier part of this Judgment as to the true import and construction of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provision being an enabling provision, whenever a Magistrate invokes the said provision and condones the delay, the order of the Magistrate must indicate that he was satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary in the interest of justice to condone the delay. But without such an order being there or in the absence of such positive order, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
