HTNUMANTH RAO Vs. NARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Susheela Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the complaint instituted by the appellant under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, should not have upheld the plea of limitation put forward by the accused under Section 468 (2) (b) Cr. P.C., notwithstaneing the conclusion reached by him that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also by the counsel appearing for the accused that the question is net covered by any autherity. In my opinion, the question is of general importance and an autheritative pronouncement, on the question raised, by a Division Bench of this Court is necessary. The records in the case may, therefore, be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the case before a Division Bench. In pursuance of the above reference the matter come up for final disposal before the Bench

(2.) The above appeal is preferred against the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda in C.C. No. 36 of 1977 OB his file acquitting the accused therein, respondents 1 to 3 herein, of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the prosecution of the accused is barred by time as enacted under Section 468 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure. When the appeal came up for hearing before one of us, Smt. Susheela Devi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the complaint instituted by the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code should not have entertained and upheld the plea of limitation put forward by the accused notwithstanding the conclusion reached by him that the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. As the question raised is of general importance, an autheritative pronouncement on the question by a Division Bench of this Court was considered necessary and a reference was accordingly made for posting the appeal before a Division Bench. The appeal was thus listed before us for answering the reference.

(3.) The material facts giving rise to the above appeal may be briefly stated.