SUBBAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed against the order of JMFC, Anekal C. C. No. 435/99. The petitioners are the accused and alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323, I. P. C. on 8-9-94. It is unfortunate to note that the charge-sheet filed smacks ignorance of the rudiments of the criminal law on the part of investigating agency. In particular the P. S. I. of Anekal working as on 30-7-99 who has filed the charge-sheet. The offence under Sections 341, 323, I. P. C. are mentioned without invoking the aid of the provisions regarding sharing of common intention; under Section 34, common knowledge, under Sec. 35, abetment under Sec. 107, sharing of common object envisaged for the offences under Chapter VIII of I. P. C. or for conspiracy under Sec. 120-B by the accused jointly. Unless the said provisions are invoked joint trial of the accused would not (be) permitted in law and it is necessary that specific charge in that regard has to be framed. In the absence of specific charge, the invoking of the aforesaid provisions by inference later on also would not be permissible. Consequently, there could be no conviction and the joint trial held in the absence of charge for the aforesaid provision would vitiate the trial.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY, the allegation in the charge-sheet discloses that by sharing the common intention, the offences alleged have been committed by the accused. Therefore, it is appropriate for the investigation agency to file the charge-sheet invoking Section 34, I. P. C. along with other substantial offences in the charge-sheet.

(3.) THE another glaring mistake noticeable is that the charge-sheet is filed beyond the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468, Cr. P. C. The charge-sheet is filed on 30-7-97 almost 13 years after the incident. No application for condonation of delay is filed. Without knowing any of the basic aspects of the provisions relating to limitation for filing of the charge-sheet in an imprudent and mechanical way, the charge-sheet is filed. Ex facie, it discloses that the cognizance of the offence alleged cannot be taken in view of the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P. C. for the offences in question, as the charge-sheet should have been filed within one year.