V P LAKSHMI Vs. M SARVOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is at the instance of the complainant who initiated the proceedings against the respondent under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, on an allegation that on 4.6.1986, the respondent/accused abused the appellant/complainant by calling her caste name and also ordered her to get out of the room by saying that she being a lower caste woman cannot speak to a person hailing from a higher caste. Before the trial court, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and two others on her side to establish the said allegation. THE trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on several grounds and one of them is that the complaint is barred by limitation.

(2.) IN view of the Judgment that I propose to pass, I find it unnecessary to advert to all the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in his judgment for the acquittal and suffice it to me to say that the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation. It is the case of the appellant that she was abused by the respondent by calling her caste name and admittedly a private complaint was filed by her in the court on 16.8.1991. The maximum punishment contemplated for the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is six months imprisonment and if so, the complaint right to have been filed within one year from the date of incident in terms of Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. As the complaint was laid after five years, it is barred by limitation. It is, of course, true that the appellant has in her evidence, stated that she gave a complaint on 14.6.1986 to the INspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Wing, and thereafter also, she laid a complaint to the superintendent of Police on 19.11.1987. According to her, as the police did not take any action, she laid the present complaint in the court. The trial court rejected her explanation by holding that she did not take any step to summon those complaints which she allegedly lodged with the police. The appellant also did not file any petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. praying for condonation of the delay in laying the complaint. Therefore, the trial court was of the view that the complaint itself is barred by limitation and the respondent is entitled for an acquittal.