M L MANSOORI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, an accused in Cr. Case No. 5/87 before the Sessions Judge Ambikapur, Surguja, invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to earn a discharge on the ground that the said prosecution has become barred by limitation.

(2.) The Collector, Surguja, on receipt of a complaint from one Jawaharlal Gupta, against the applicant and others, to the effect that the labourers employed for construction of Chalta-Harra road were not being paid due wages and that muster rolls were being forged, made an inquiry through Shri D. L. Sharma, Dy. Collector. The inquiry revealed that the allegations were true and that one A. L. Kori and Ramdulare Singh besides the applicant were involved in the crime. The Collector thereafter wrote to S. P. Surguja, on 17-7-1983 to proceed against the culprits in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, a crime was registered on 1-8-1983. During the investigation, the prosecution found no justification for allegations against Shri Kori. He was, therefore, made a prosecution witness. The other two, i.e. the applicant and Ramdulare Singh, according to the prosecution, were guilty of offence under Section 6 M.P. Vinirdist Bharast Acharan Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and filed charge sheet against them of 9-8-1986 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. The Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Judge on 8-7-1987. The applicant appeared before the learned Magistrate but took no objection either on the ground of limitation or otherwise. There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to indicate how the matter of limitation was dealt with. Even before the learned Sessions Judge, the objection based on limitation was not raised in writing. It was, however, raised during the arguments before charge and dealt with by the learned Judge in the impugned order dated 24-2-1988. According to the learned Sessions Judge the period of limitation for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act, was three years as prescribed under Section 488(2(c) Cr. P.C. and therefore, there was delay of 9 days in filing the charge sheet. The learned Judge, however, was of the opinion that the case involved matter of public importance and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to ignore the said delay exercising powers under Section 473 Cr. P.C. That is how she question of limitation was decided against the applicant and hence this approach to this Court. It should, however, be noticed that the prosecution alleged that the facts disclosed in the charge sheet also indicate commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 488, 471 I.P.C. which prescribe penalty of life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. It was, therefore, submitted that no period of limitation was prescribed for such a case, and hence no such question should arise. Surprisingly enough though the submission was noticed, it was not dealt with by the learned Judge in the impugned order.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, in the main, is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the charge sheet was filed had taken cognizance of the offence without deciding the question of limitation and has, therefore, committed the illegality which is sufficient to vitiate the trial. It is also submitted that the question of limitation can be considered only before the Court had taken cognizance of the offence and have neither the session nor this Court would have jurisdiction to condone the delay and regularise proceedings. Alternatively it is submitted that if this Court holds that the delay could be condoned either by the Sessions Judge or this Court after the matter has been proceeded for some time, the facts of the case do not justify such condonation and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. It is, therefore, prayed that the proceedings be quashed and the applicant discharged. Reliance has been placed on Krishna Singhhai v. State of M.P. 1976 MPLJ 559. (1977 Cri LJ 90) R. C. Trivedi v. A. H. Paranjape 1982 Cri LJ 869 (Bom) Kathamuthu v. Balammal 1987 Cri LJ 360 (Madras); Prakash Chandra Sharma v. Kaushal Kishore 1980 Cri LJ 578 (All); Panney Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1980 Cri LJ 339 (Raj); S. K. Bajaj and others v. D. K. Bhattacharya 1982 Cri LJ 210 (Cal) K. Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao v. The Secretary, Agriculture Appellate, Committed Orgole 1985 Cri LJ 176 (Andh Pra) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh AIR 1981 SC 1054: (1981 Cri. LJ 722) Ghansham Dass v. Sham Sundar Lal 1982 Cri L.J 1717 (Punj and Har) and Srinivas Pal v. Union Territory if Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1729: (1988 Cri LJ 1803). The learned Government Advocate, however, insisted that the facts appearing in the charge sheet also disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C. for which no period of limitation is prescribed. He, therefore prayed that this Court should, in larger public interest direct these charges to be framed. Even, otherwise, it is submitted that Section 473 Cr. P.C. does not require any application and casts an obligation on the Court to consider whether the delay, if any, deserves to be ignored, and since, the question of wider public interest is involved in the instant case, the delay was rightly condoned.