← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33093/2019dismissed

Kanwaldeep Singh Luthra v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2024-08-14Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil5 pages

  

          



  !

"#

$%$

& '( )

 ( *$$    +)) ) ,   

$$$$$)  ) #  -( $ )  )    

 

  

     )   (.

 !

 

#

 $%&    !) )! &)!% *+ ,!-     / '   .





   0

   2  !1 )3 &)!4 *+ ,&-          & /

  (  ((   (  $$ 

   5 & 6( #  .

     5 &  8/6 5 !9:

 !1 ): &))4

 $)1 $&) /'

    ;

 5 %  

6 5 &    

# <

8/6

   .

  =>  ( 7



 (

 6  5 &   (      &3 )& &)!1 *+ ,$-

 5 &

    

 .

 =          

 



      

 

  0

      ? 5 &

     

  

       

   

  #

   0 

( 

  $1% '  '

 6    #

 $ =           #



  $1% 

 

  '  (

 . , *- $1% /

  (  $1% '  '

 

 , 



     

1. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in SubSection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

2. The period of limitation shall be

1. six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

2. one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

3. three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

 For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."

:

   $1% '  '

 

( 

"

     !"##$ % &'(')#*(' (++,+-.,, /

 @In State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, 1981 Crl.L.J.722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of

limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which the material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence. Further, in Moti Pathak and others v. State of U.P., 1988(2) Crimes page 659, it was observed that the plea of bar of limitation can be raised at any stage of proceedings and that even when it was not raised, the Magistrate should have considered his power and authority in the light of sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C.' %   

  

 0

  (  

&)!3 0     & .

&)!1

.

. 

  

  6 



 6 

  ( .

  .



   

 (      

<

.

   ( 

6  ( 

    #  A ( 



0

  

 .

0



   

 .

  !) 

 

 .

  .



(.





/ 

.

 

'< .    

 .

  .

!!

=  

0)   (1

$%$

 Poonam Negi

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No