IN RE: MOHAN RAJ AND APPAVOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the accused, two in number, who are charged for alleged offences under Ss. 36A and 36E of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882, read with R. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Possession of Sandal Wood Rules, 1970. The charge is that on 2nd December, 1978 the accused were found in possession of 14 kilos and 18 kilos of sandalwood respectively, for which they were arrested on the same day. Later, charge-sheet against them was filed on 14th February, 1981 in C.C. No. 59 of 1981.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year and so, as per S. 463 (3) , Crl. P.C. the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the offence on 2nd December, 1978 and therefore, the prosecution was barred by limitation. This objection was raised before the trial court which passed an order overruling the same. The reasoning of the lower court was that the forest officials had to address the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, and that the matter had to be investigated. Therefore, it was explained that the delay was on account of the correspondence in the office. The learned Magistrate in the end held that the delay was not wanton. The petitioners (accused) are aggrieved and they have come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 59 of 1981.

(3.) It is clear that the charge-sheet was filed after more than 3 years from the date of the arrest when it should have been filed within one year. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon several ruling reported in Thirupoondi In re,1980 LW(Cri) 41 Tricky Market Committee v. S. Savaridoss, 1981 LW(Cri) 353, S.N. Vikal v. A.L. Chopra, 1978 3 SCR 434, and State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh and urged that the prosecution in this case was barred by time. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, 1981 AIR(SC) 1054, that it is of the utmost importance that any prosecution whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution on the ground of limitation. On the facts of the case, the mere fact that the forest officials laid information to the police within the time will not save the prosecution from the bar of limitation. The petitioners have been arrested on 2nd December, 1978 and the case was also registered. It is no defence for the prosecution to say that the delay in filing the charge-sheet was on account of official correspondence.