9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 500 I.P.C. at the instance of respondent Ascharaj Lal Chopra. 2. The appellant challenged the Magistrate's order for two reasons, but the controversy before us refers to his claim that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence Under Section 500 I.P.C. as the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the CrPC had expired. The controversy thus relates to a short point of law and can well be examined on the basis of the admitted facts. 3. The appellant was working as General Secretary of the Central Bank of India Employees Union, Punjab Ludhiana, which was a registered body. The respondent was employed as Special Assistant in that Bank, and one Amreek Singh was employed there as a clerk. The respondent worke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for the appearance of the present appellant in that case. That was why the present appellant applied to the High Court Under Section 482 Crl. P. C. for quashing the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence against him. As his application has been rejected by the High Court, accused Surinder Mohan Vikal has preferred the present appeal as aforesaid. 4. Chapter XXXVI of the CrPC, 1973, deals with limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. For purposes of that chapter, Section 467 defines the expression period of limitation to mean the period specified in Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. In its turn, Section 468, which bars the taking of cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 406/420 I.P.C. was filed on March 15, 1972, It has specially been stated in the respondent's complaint Under Section 500 I.P.C. that the defamatory matter was contained in that complaint. So, according to the complaint, the offence Under Section 500 I.P.C. was committed on March 15, 1972, which was the date of the offence within the meaning of Section 469(1)(a) of the Code, and the period of three years' limitation would be calculated with reference to that date for purposes of the bar provided by Section 468. But, as has been stated, the complaint Under Section 500 I.P.C. was filed on February 11, 1976, much after the expiry of that period. It was therefore not permissible for the Court of the Magistrate to take cognizance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall be excluded : Provided that no such exclusion shall be made unless the prosecution relates to the same facts and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. it is an essential requirement of the Sub-section that the person who seeks its benefit should be able to establish that he was prosecuting another prosecution in one Court or the other referred to in the Sub-section. But it is not the case of the respondent that he was prosecuting the appellant in any other prosecution. It is also not his case that that prosecution related to the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
