High Court for State of TelanganaCRLRC/1810/2017disposed of no costs

Singireddy Laxma Reeddy v. The State Of Telangana

2017-08-04M.Satyanarayana Murthy2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1810 of 2017 ORDER:

This revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (fort short "Cr.P.C.") questioning the legality of the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.509 of 2016 in C.C.No.1017 of 2015 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") It appears from the record the only ground urged before this Court is that the complaint is barred by limitation on the ground that by the date of taking cognizance the period of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance was over. Based on Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "Sarah Mathew v.

Institution of Cardio Vascular Diseases1" the trial Court held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which Magistrate takes cognizance.

In the facts of the present case before the trial Court, the offence allegedly took place on 01.03.2012 or 02.04.2012, 1 AIR 2014 SC 448

MSM,J Crl.R.C._1810_2017 as the case may be, the complaint lodged on 08.06.2012 and the F.I.R. was issued on 19.06.2012. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude, at this stage, the complaint is barred by limitation as the gap between the date of alleged offence i.e. 01.03.2012 or 02.04.2012 and date of lodging complaint 08.06.2012 is within the limitation. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps at appropriate stage.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 04.08.2017 Ksp