LAWS(SC)-1958-11-12

DAU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On November 24, 1958
DAU DAYAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to this appeal are these:On 26th April 1954, the appellant was arrested by the Sisamau Police for offences under Ss. 120, 482, 483, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he was in possession of 25 packets of 'Chand Chhap Biri', which were alleged to bear counterfeit trade marks. On 26th May 1954 one Harish Chandra Jain acting on behalf of M/s. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das filed a complaint charging that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit bidis, wrappers and labels and praying that a case under the sections above mentioned be registered and investigated. On that, the Magistrate passed the following order:

(2.) The contention of the appellant was that the offence was discovered on 26th April 1954, when he was arrested and the goods seized, and that, in consequence, the issue of process on 22nd July 1955 was beyond the period of one year provided under S. 15 of the Act, and that the proceedings should therefore be quashed as barred by limitation. The Magistrate rejected this contention, and a Revision Petition preferred against this order to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, shared the same fate. The appellant then filed a further Revision Petition to the High Court of Allahabad, being Criminal Revision No. 1594 of 1956, and the same was heard along with other similar Revision Petitions by a Bench consisting of James and Takru, JJ. By their judgment dated 13th May 1958 the learned Judges held that the prosecution commenced when the complaint was presented on 26the May 1954 and that as the discovery was on 26th April 1954 the proceedings were within time under S. 15 of the Act. In view of the importance of the question raised, they granted leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 184 (1) (c) of the Constitution, and that is how the matter comes before us.

(3.) The point for decision is, when does a prosecution commence for purposes of S. 15 of the Act, whether on the date when the complaint is preferred, or when the process is issued thereon The word "prosecution" is not defined in the Act, nor are there any provisions therein bearing on this question. Now, under the law and apart from statutory prescriptions, a prosecution commences, where it is at the instance of a private prosecutor, when the complaint is preferred. The position is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. X, 3rd Edn., p. 340, para. 630: