STATE Vs. DEEPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Investigating Officer in, A.F.I.R.No.1 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under Sec.482, CrLP.C. praying to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, closing A.F.I.R.No.1 of 1988 on 1.3.1991.

(2.) BRIEF facts are: Selvi Jayalalitha Jayaram, then an M.P. and present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had sent a telegram to the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu on 25.12.1987, the contents of which are briefly as follows:

(3.) MR.N.Natarajan, would contend that in the ruling first cited supra, the apex court had directed that the under-trial prisoner against whom charge sheets have not been filed by the police within the period of limitation, provided under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.468 cannot be proceeded against at all and they would be entitled to be released forthwith and in the second ruling cited above, this Court has held in suggestion No.3 that by applying Sec.468(2)(b), Crl.P.C, all summons cases punishable with imprisonment for one year or less, not taken cognizance of due to the non-filing of the charge sheets even after the expiry of one year from the date of offence or any other relevant date prescribed for the commencement of the period of limitation as provided for under Sec.469, Crl.P.C, should be struck off from the file of the Courts, after giving short notice to the prosecution and in view of the above pronouncements of the apex court and this Court, on expiry of period of limitation, the cases should be struck off without awaiting the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, under Sec.190, Crl.P.C. The view expressed by the apex court which I have extracted above was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kathamuthu v. Balammal 1985 L.W. (CrL) 252 Justice Ratnavel Pandian (as he then was) had extracted the above passage of the apex court and had observed as follows: ?This observation shows that once the period of limitation has expired, the accused would be entitled to be released forthwith, as otherwise that would be in violation of his fundamental right under Art.21 of the Constitution and also against the intendment of Sec.468(2). This implies that the moment the period of limitation comes to an end, the Court is prohibited from taking cognizance of the offence unless the period is extended by condoning the delay by virtue of Sec.473.? In Jaganathan v. State, 1983 L. W. (CrL) 250 as per suggestion No.3, after giving short notice to the prosecution, by applying Sec.468(2)(b), Crl.P.C, after expiry of the period of limitation, summons cases should be struck off.