PRABHAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the arguments advanced before me, the simple question for consideration is whether the prosecution is barred by limitation under S.468 of the Criminal P.C.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. 3/80 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alwaye. He was charge-sheeted for having committed offences punishable under Ss. 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Magistrate convicted him under both the counts. For the offence under S. 39 he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and for the offence under S. 44, the sentence awarded was fine of Rs. 250/-. He preferred Crl. Appeal 52/81 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur. The appeal was allowed in part. Conviction and sentence for the offence under S. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act were set aside and he was acquitted on that count. Conviction and sentence under S. 44 of the Indian Electricity Act were maintained. The criminal revision petition is directed against the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) For the offence under S. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, the punishment prescribed is that of the offence of theft under S. 379 I.P.C., which is imprisonment up to a period of three years. For the offence under section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act the punishment provided is only fine extending up to Rs. 500/-. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a bar to taking cognizance after the period of limitation. According to S. 468(2)(a), the period of limitation is six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years the period of limitation provided under S. 468(2)(c) is three years. Section 469 of the Code says that the period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence on the date of the offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. In this case the crime was admittedly detected on 20-9-1977. If so the period of limitation, according to S. 469(1) (b), will commence on 20-9-1977. The case was registered on 22-9-1977. Charge was laid before court only on 6-12-1978 which is evidently more than a year after the commission of the offence was made known to the aggrieved person or to the police officer as the case may be. Under S. 468(2)(a) of the Cr. P.C. the prosecution for an offence under S. 44 of the Indian Electricity Act was evidently barred by limitation by that time. But the revision petitioner was prosecuted not only for an offence punishable under S. 44 of the Indian Electricity Act but also for the major offence punishable under S. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, the punishment of which is imprisonment up to three years. If so under S. 468(2)(c) of the Code the prosecution would have been well within time because the period of limitation provided is three years.