SRINIVAS PAL Vs. U T ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20.11.76 the appellant was posted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as an Executive Engineer (Elect). An accident took place in the jeep which was alleged to have been driven by the appellant. The accident took place within the Bomdilo Police Station in Ar. P. In the said accident one of the occupants, J.K, Jain, Asstt. Eng. died and another S. Karim, driver sustained grievous injuries. According to the police the accident is attributable to rash and negligent driving of the appellant. As per the case file, R.B. Singh, S.I. submitted a report to the Deputy Comm. Bomdila on 22.11.76 who according to the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s 32 (c) of Regulation I of 1945 and the police registered the case. The Magistrate held that cognizance was taken on 22.11.76. This finding, however, was not sustained by the High Court. I he police is alleged to have registered the case and took up investigations and submitted the chargesheet in Sept, 1977 which, however, appears to have been placed before the Deputy Comm. on 31.3.86 and it was on that date that the cognizance of the offence was taken, according to the High Court. The Magistrate in his order stated that the reason why report could not be placed before the Court promptly merited detailed probing, which showed that cognizance was taken on 22.11.76 by the competent authority but the court proceedings thereof commenced on 31 3 86. The appellant was chargesheeted u/s 279 read with section 304A/338 of the Indian Penal Code . According to the appellant cognizance was only taken on 31.3.86. The first question, therefore, in this case is : when was the cognizance taken. By the order of the Magistrate, the appellant was directed to appear on the next date of hearing, that is on 8.9.86 The order was passed on 14.7.86.

(2.) Challenging the said order, appellant moved High Court of Gauhati u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the charges. The High Court in its judgment dated 14.8.87. held that the investigations started on 22.11.76 on the registration of the case u/s 279, 304 A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code . and the investigation was completed on 8 9.77 and cognizance was taken on 31.3.86 when the Deputy Comm. passed the following order : "Records perused. Issue summons to the accused to appear at Kameng on 9.5.86. Therefore, the first question that arises is, when was the cognizance taken, on 22.11.76 or 31.3.86. High Court held that cognizance was taken on 31.3.86. The offence u/s 279 is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or with fine, or with both. Offence u/s 304A is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or with fine, or with both. Offence u/s 338 is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or with fine or with both. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offences would be three years u/s 468.

(3.) There is, however, a provision for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, where on the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so. This is provided in S. 473 of Criminal Procedure Code .