MANEKLAL G SONS Vs. K A PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short) to quash the Criminal Case No. 681 of 1985.

(2.) One of the grounds made out is that the complaint filed is barred by limitation prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Code. It is also contended that in view of this fact, Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process and, therefore, issuance of process is bad and should be quashed.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. contended before the Court that in the complaint itself, a prayer for condoning the delay is made out and no doubt there is no specific order condoning the delay, but issuance of process by the Court should be read as delay being condoned and process is issued after application of mind. Mr. Tirmizi, learned Counsel, contended that assuming that the delay is presumed to have been condoned in view of the order of issuance of process, then also it is bad inasmuch as the delay is condoned without hearing the accused. Mr. Tirmizi further contended that when a law of limitation is prescribed for filing complaint and the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation, a right is created in favour of the accused and that right cannot be determined or taken away or extinguished by condoning the delay without hearing the accused. In view of this fact, the order of issuance of process on assumption that the delay is condoned is bad.