RAMASAMI ACHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 460 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai.

(2.) THE petitioner was charged for offences under Ss. 420 and 406, I.P.C., before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai in C.C. No. 460 of 1986. The allegations are that in the year 1974, the Complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 on a promissory note from the petitioner and as security for that loan, he had also deposited title deeds of the property worth about Rs. 1,000 and also certain pieces of jewellery. In August, 1983, the complainant wanted to discharge the loan, but the petitioner told him that the jewels have been sold and that he could manufacture and give him new jewellery. The complainant did not believe this. He gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, B.3 Police Station, Madurai, on 2nd March, 1984. As nothing was done by the Police, he give a petition to the Collector who directed him to give a complaint to the concerned police. After investigation, the Respondent Police have filed the charge sheet. The case of the petitioner is that no case under Ss. 20 and 406, I.P.C., is made out as it was a pledge of his jewels and as there was no inducement and as there is nothing in the complaint to show that any deception was practised. Even on the face of the complaint, there is no cheating. The petitioner also would say that there was long delay in filing the complaint. His next contention is that the complaint, in so far as the charge under S. 406, I.P.C., is concerned, is barred by limitation and the court cannot take cognizance of the same which is barred.

(3.) THE only question now to be considered is as regards the charge under S. 406, I.P.C. The complaint shows that the complainant wanted to discharge the loan and for that purpose approached the petitioner who, in August 1983, informed him that be has sold the jewels, but would make fresh jewels. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that that information was given to the complainant on the last day of August 1983, the complaint would be barred by limitation as the charge sheet in this case was filed on 26.9.1986. What was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is not the date of filing of the complaint that would decide the question of limitation, but it is the date on which the court takes cognizance of the matter that has to be taken note of. The Magistrate will be deemed to have taken cognizance of the offence if he applies his mind for that purpose. In this case, the Magistrate should be deemed to have taken cognizance of the matter on the date when charge sheet was filed namely on 26.9.86. That apart, from the facts narrated already, one is not able to gather the ingredients of & 406, I.P.C. For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.