HASMUKHTRIVEDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed by the husband seeks quashing of the charge framed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against him on 30.3.90. The charge framed was that in the year 1979 the petitioner husband being entrusted with Stridhan of his wife Smt. Darshna Trivedi at the time of her marriage in 1979 dishonestly converted the same to his own use despite demands and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. The charge also mentions the Stridhan with reference to two lists Marks A and B.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The first grievance made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lists shown as Mark A and B are not so marked in the file of the learned Magistrate and on this ground alone the charge was likely to be quashed, I have perused the file of the trial Court. It does contain two lists. But it appears that by inadvertence those lists are not marked as A and B. There is no bar for a Magistrate to amend or modify the charge even at a later stage of the trial. I am sure that the Magistrate will rectify the charge in this respect.

(3.) Second argument is that the alleged misappropriation took place in 1979 and this complaint having been filed in 1987 was clearly barred by time. In this respect learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054 while on the other hand my attention has been drawn on behalf of the respondent to the case of Renu and Others v. The State of Haryana and Anothers, 1990 (1) C.C. Cases 435 (HC). I have carefully perused both these authorities. I am of the view that the authority cited on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the accused was charged undersection 406 IPC for mis-appropriating the amount deposited with him as a cashier of Tanda Badha Co-operative Society, District Patiala. Therefore, there was a specific date ofentrustment of the amounts deposited with the accused. Even in this case the charge was found to be barred by limitation assuming that the misappropriation came to the knowledge of the Authorities at the time of audit report. I am of the view that the ruling of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is based on absolute similar circumstances and I am in respectful agreement with the same. In this case the alleged mis-appropriation of Stridhan was by the husband and in-laws of the wife. Besides Section 406 of the Code they were being prosecuted under other Sections of the Penal Code like 498-A. It was held that so far as the prosecution under Section 406 of the Code was concerned, it was in the nature of a continuing offence and, therefore, no case was made out for quashing the first information report qua that offence whereas the prosecution in respect of other offences was quashed. In the present case also the Stridhan although alleged to the entrusted in 1979, misappropriation qua it will not be barred by limitation because it is a continuing offence and the limitation will start running only from the date when the demand is made by the wife. The complaint in this case was filed on 18.12.87. Therefore, lam of the view that the prosecution is not barred. In any case it will be for the petitioner to bring out certain circumstances on record for coming to the conclusion that the demands were either made earlier or were not made earlier when the same could be made so that during the trial only it could be elucidated since when the limitation would start. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the charge against the petitioner. Petition has thus no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.