State of Assam vs Abdul Samad

This is an application u/s 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order 22.2.85 passed by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate 1st Class, Goalpara in Complaint Case No. 120/83 u/s 83-A(3) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, shortly, ''the Act'' acquitting the Respondent from the charge under that Section.

The aforesaid Complaint Case No. 120/83 was instituted by the Bakijai Officer, Co-operative Societies, Goalpara against the Respondent on the ground, inter-alia that a sum of Rs. 1028.24 was recoverable from him under the Act and for recovery thereof a demand notice was served on the Respondent on 29.10.82 asking him to pay the said amount and on failure of the Respondent to pay the amount in question the instant prosecution was launched. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate found on scrutiny that the demand certificate was issued on 19.1.82 u/s 83-A(2) of the Act on the Respondent asking him to repay the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certificate, provided that the period during which the payment was to be made might be extended by the Registrar for another period not exceeding thirty days for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 83-A of the Act any person violating the provisions of Sub-section (2) above shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

In the instant case the demand certificate having been served on 19.1.82 the Respondent had thirty days time to make the payment, i.e., within 19.2.82. Admittedly the complaint was filed on 2.3.83 i.e., after one year of the commission of the offence. There is nothing to show that the period for payment was extended by the Registrar.

u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(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 the term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

Under Sub-section (3) of Section 83-A of the Act, the period of punishment prescribed is for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. The period of limitation shall therefore be one year. In the instant case, the prosecution having been launched after more than one year, the learned Court was justified in rejecting the prayer on the ground of limitation.

Mr. C.R. De, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the Respondent committed the economic offence in respect of Co-operative fund and he should not be given the benefit of the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are not inclined to accept the above submission. In State of Punjab Vs. Sarwan Singh, their Lordships laid down that the object of Code of Criminal Procedure in putting a bar of limitation on probation was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which 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 the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation.

Mr. C.R. De further submits that this Co-operative Societies Act being a special Act, limitation as prescribed in Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable. This submission is also not tenable in view of the fact that the Court had to take cognizance in the complaint and taking cognizance itself was subject to limitation. In Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kothavalasa v. Venkateshwara Groundnut Oil Mills and Ors. 1984 CRI. L.J. 503 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Special Acts were not one of those excluded from the purview of Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Jagannathan and Others Vs. The State, a Single Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings where cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 468 Code of Criminal Procedure and no application for extending the period of limitation was filed.

In view of the above position of law we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, this prayer for special leave is accordingly rejected and the appeal is also similarly rejected.