JANARDN Vs. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused against his conviction under section 500, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 200, or in default simple imprisonment for three months, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsimhapur, at Camp Durg, in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1964, dated 27-12-1968.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the judgment of the trial Court is appealable and consequently this Court ought not to entertain a revision. Attention was invited to section 413, Criminal Procedure Code, which lays down that 'Notwithstanding anything contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases in which......a Court of session passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month only, or in which a Court of Session or District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the first class passes a sentence of fine not exceeding fifty rupees only'. As the fine imposed was Rs. 200, an appeal will lie under section 410, Criminal Procedure Code. Where an appeal lies, a revision would be barred, as provided by section 439 (5), Criminal Procedure Code. For this reason, I am of opinion that the present revision cannot be entertained, especially when the remedy of an appeal is open to the petitioner. However, the present revision can as well be treated as an appeal, especially when no question of court-fees is involved, nor is the question of limitation involved. THE petitioner affixed more court-fees than what might be required for an appeal and the revision was filed even before a fortnight of the impugned judgment. For these reasons I treat the present revision as an appeal and direct that the same shall be registered as a memorandum of appeal and numbered accordingly.

(3.) THUS, sub-section (4) of the section not only provides for a period of limitation of six months for filing of such a complaint, but also it prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of an offence unless the complaint is filed within six months of the commission of the offence. In the instant case the offence was committed on 9-3-1964 by publishing an article in a local newspaper, known as 'Bhilai Samachar', of which the petitioner is the Editor, Publisher and Printer. Although the prosecution wanted his conviction under sections 500, 501 and 502, Indian Penal Code, the trial Judge found him guilty under section 500, Indian Penal Code only holding that punishing him under sections 501 and 502, Indian Penal Code would be unnecessary in view of his conviction under section 500, Indian Penal Code. Sanction for the prosecution was obtained on 5-9-1964 and the complaint itself was filed by the Public Prosecutor on 17-9-1964. As such, the last date for filing of the complaint according to the sub-section (4) of section 198-B, Criminal Procedure Code, was 9-9-1964. The complaint having been filed on 17-9-1964, would be barred by 8 days. However, the trial Judge held that section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable and as the order-sheet of the trial Judge, dated 15-12-1964, indicates, he thought a sufficient cause was made out and in that view, he extended the time under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. No grievance of this was made in the Trial Court. But for the first time, the question has been raised in the present revision, now ordered to be registered as an appeal, that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to a complaint. In this connection, attention was invited to section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, which speaks of a suit or an appeal or an application. It does not include the word 'complaint'. It may be relevant to reproduce section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which is the relevant provision applicable to the present case, as follows:-