High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/97/2020allowed

Bhanti Devi And ORS v. Satish Kumar

2024-09-02Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil9 pages

!""#

$ %&'"

( '( ''

& ****

"#$ % ! & " & ()!

* +, -. " '() * +,( $$ -

&# -%

. / 0 (+(11,(2 -% !#

. 3

&# -% 4

5#43##3 (6,71,(2 -%

8$ -3 3 # &# -%

5# 4 3 '1) #& 3 / :8 "(+; 7((,1,(7 717 7<+ <,=&8$,7,;1,(<* & # +22<,, 8$ - &# 1+,(1,(;> - # # &# -% 4# 3

&# -%-

-. # 0 -%

- 2 - '7) 8 && & & <,,8$ - & -4 ') & +=2 & $$ &### &&& '-)3 & && 3 .3 3 -

3 #% #-# -%

#> - #&# # +=6$$ 3 && && -#

% # # #&&# #

% ###& & &&# # <,,8$ & +=2$$ :8 -

7((,1,(7 3

7175<,= 8$ - 3 / ,7,;1,(< & # 3 &# 1+,(1,(; - -% # * $ / / & # & 4 ?

#- & & ? #- .

3 &7% & & '+) " &3 ,;,11,1,

& #3 % >3

& 12,71,11 - & $ # 3 '<) > # # & 0 -% - #3

- 3 - '=) !## +225<,,8$3&# -%

4# ' ) 4 & &# ##

:8 "(+;51,(7

5#& #&3 % 3 & &##%/ ,7,;1,(< & &# # +22<,,8$ ';) * # (6,71,(2 #&# -%

& & 4 -% #

5# 3 / &- &&- & & '6) 8 & # &#

##3 -%

# -% # 3 & +22 8$ ##

:8 @A$(1 #4

5 3 & 3 &##3 && B &C

+228$ & 3 -. #&& '2) * # & & 3 & #

& #%& -

* # #% -

% & #

3 #-# & # #- # #% -& & 3 #&0#

- 4 - -

D# 3.

! "

##$%&' ( )

3 $ #%& & && &

& '(,) @ - & #$

- &

#$ -# # # - #& & #5

-# #% #% % & #3 & * &

## -# - &

# 3 & & ## 3 -& &- & &

#- ##3 3 '(() !

#&# # 3 ## # #& & <,,8$ #&# #3##-

& &# & :8& 3 :8 3/ 3 # #% - +=6 $$ 3

# #- % &#$ EEE8 & $$ # 3 # & . ? & && & &$ +=; & A F & #F & +=6& . ? &&& * #&# #-

& & +=6$$3 4

- 5 -

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1)Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2)The period of limitation shall be - (a)six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b)one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c)three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. '(1) * && & & <,,8$-

& & +=2$$3 4

(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence, (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.

(2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. '(7) * #% - & # - # - & 8

% & # 3#-

% - # ')& -4 '()* / 3 &##- & & G* 3&##3 3& +=2$# ')&-4 '()&

- 6 - &# #&& ##H 4

'(+) ! -

&&& -# -%

% # # & &# #

% & & && *

& +=2& $$ 3 & # & # <,, & 8$ 3 - &3% H# & -& & ##

&# 3 - # 8 :8 3 #

- 7( 1,(7 3

717 <,=& 8$!# 3/ #%7 1,(< #3&# %1+ 1,(;

4% # - +=6 +=2 & $$ * & - 7( 1,(7 3 :8 3 #

3 #-

&# 1+,(1,(; & &

% '(<) # - # !$ *%"+$

, - . %/ )0 1 03 $ ## & & &# # & & /#* #

& 0 4 "...It been stated, sub-section (1) of section 469 of the Code specific provides that the period of limitation prescribed in section 468, relation to an offender, shall commence (inter alia) on the date the offence. It would therefore follow that the date of the of was March 15, 1972, when the defamatory complaint was file the Court of the Magistrate, and that was the starting point for purpose of calculating the three years' period of limitation. High Court clearly erred in taking a contrary view.

- 7 - An attempt was made to argue before us that the respond was, at any rate, entitled to the exclusion of time under sub- section (1) of section 470 of the Code in computing the period of limitation The sub-section reads as follows,- "470 (1) In computing the period of limitation, the time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution, 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 seeks its benefit should be able to establish that he was "prosecuting" another prosecution in one Court or the other referred to the sub-section. But it is not the case of the respondent that he was prosecuting the appellant in any other prosecution. It is not his case that that prosecution related to the "same facts" within the meaning of the proviso to the sub-section. The provision of subsection (1) of section 470 cannot therefore avail the respondent, and he is not entitled to the exclusion of any time thereunder. It may, be mentioned that the respondent has not sought the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 473 which permits the extension of the period of limitation in certain cases. It would thus appear that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 468 which prohibits every Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation..."

'(=) 8 # 3 ## # / & # #- -- %

- & > $- -% $ -& A#& #%

&#&

% &0 8 - ? -

-% #$ 3# - & # & 3

- 8 - -# & $ I- #% - - &# '(;) & - &

# ##

:8 -% 3# &## 3 & & &

@ @A +228$ -

+228$3

A J &KL8 :83 3

& - #

- 8 3 # # &#3 6& +228$3###% %3# % & @ @A +228$ 4

'(6) ! #& 3#.

& & & & % #3&# %

3 -0 & HM&H-

& <18$% - - #

F &F3 - #

3 @

& && 3# -

@ @A 3# &

& ##

## .

& # '(2) 8 -# & #-# % - # #

- 9 - 3# - @ @A +228$ * - &

# $ #

- 3 # 0&-#

-# # -. # '1,) 8 3& -

##3 0 (+(11,(2 -% !#

. -% ,1,21,1+ ## ()!

* +, -

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No