ANNAMMA MATHEW Vs. GEORGE VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS challenge the order passed by the Court below condoning the delay in filing the complaint.

(2.) THE short facts that are germane for decision of this revision petition are as follows: First respondent herein was the plaintiff in O. S.360/80 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. Petitioners were defendants therein. On 15-2-1982 the petitioners filed an affidavit in court containing certain defamatory statements relating to the plaintiff, first respondent herein. That suit happened to be dismissed on 12-2-1988. The first respondent then filed a complaint on 7-3-1988 against the petitioners for offence u/s 500 IPC. Along with the complaint the first respondent filed C.M.P. 1225/88 for extension of the period of limitation. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioners herein. After hearing the parties by the order impugned in this revision petition the learned Magistrate took the complaint to file by condoning the delay.

(3.) THE offence under S.500 IPC is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The period of limitation for such offence is three years. The affidavit containing the defamatory statements was filed before the civil court on 15-2-1982. So the prosecution should have been launched on or before 15-2-1985,