State of Punjab vs B.D. Soni

M.M. Punchhi, J.—This is a revision petition by the State of Punjab against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Ferozpore, whereby the trial against the accused-respondent, pending before the trial Magistrate, was ordered to be closed being barred by limitation.

The patent facts are these :--

Chand Singh, an under-trial, escaped from jail without any legal authority. The accused respondent B.D. Soni, then Deputy Superintendent of jail, Ferozepur, was accused of having caused his illegal release and having shared with the under-trail the common intention of the latter''s escape. Challan under sections 223/224/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was presented before the trial Magistrate He took cognizance of the same. During the trial, an objection was taken by the accused-respondent that there was a clear bar of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court could not take cognizance of the offences since they are punishable with imprisonment extending up to a period of two years, to which the limitation of three years stood prescribed u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The period of limitation had to commence from the date of the offence.

The application was resisted by the State successfully before the trial Magistrate. Repelling the contention of the accused-respondent, the trial Magistrate took shelter under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer of the accused respondent to be acquitted on the ground of limitation was declined. In so many words, the trial Magistrate extended the period of limitation employing the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that justice could be done according to the law of the land

The accused respondent, on revision before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, was able to persuade the Court that the bar of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood in the way of the prosecution, as concededly, the final report was submitted after a period of three years, and ex facie no explanation was forth-coming along therewith, properly explaining the delay. The learned Sessions Judge pronounced in favour of the accused-respondent. However, the finding of the learned trial Magistrate that he was proceeding with the matter as it was necessary so to do for doing justice, was not touched by the Court of Session.

Now, in revision, the Learned Counsel for the state has prayed for the restoration of the order of the learned trial Magistrate. His principle contention is that when the challan was presented and cognizance taken, it should be assumed that delay had been condoned and thus there was valid congnizance of the offence. I regret my inability to agree with this contention. The Legislature has introduced in the present Code Chapter XXXVI for the first time, providing period of limitation for certain kinds of offences for a necessary object. The offences, in which the period of imprisonment does not exceed the three years, have been brought within the purview of term of limitation It seems to me that it is not only in the interest of the State that Courts are not burdened with belated prosecutions for petty offences, but, at the same time, the interest of the accused has also been safeguarded so that the sword of Damocles does not keep hanging on him indefinitely. It would be legitimate thus to assume that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance for a particular offence, a right gets vested in the accused to out bar the Court to take cognizance It is undoubtedly there that the delay can be explained, but that, too, before the Court takes cognizance of the matter. The Court cannot be assumed to have condoned delay, in the absence of any explanation, by the mere incidence that it was let to take cognizance oblivious of the delay involved. However, in the instant case, we are not confronted with that situation, because nobody has explained the delay and the trial Magistrate proceeded further on a different ground. He has chosen to proceed so that justice in this case could be done according to the law of the land. It was forgetful of the balancing principle that the law of procedure in putting bar to cognizance after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, also partakes the principles of justice according to the law of the land, Proper reasons had to be advanced by the Court by explaining the necessity to proceed with the case and that too in the interest of justice. No such reasons are forth-coming. None can be supplied now.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.