HEMANTA BORO Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOW to compute the periods of limitation prescribed under S. 468 of the code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), which imposes bar to the taking of cognizance by the Court beyond the prescribed periods of limitation and how to construe the commencement of such a period of limitation under S. 469 read with Ss. 471 and 472 of the Code are the two Important questions, which this criminal petition, made under S. 482 of the Code, have raised. Can a Court suo motu invoke the provisions of S. 473 of the Code for the purpose of extending a period of limitation and for taking of cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation or whether an application, request or prayer is required to be made, in this regard, by the prosecution or the complainant? There are the questions, which have incidentally arisen for determination in this criminal petition.

(2.) LET me, first, take note of the facts and circumstances, which have led to the making of this criminal petition : (i) Alleging, inter alia, that pursuant to the General Diary Entry No. 344, dated 21-7-1998, the enquiry, conducted, has revealed that on 21-7-1998, at about 12 noon, hemanta Bora (i. e. , the present petitioner)drove, on the National Highway No. 37, a truck, bearing registration No. As-01 C 4603, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against one Upen Boro, who was coming from the opposite direction on a bicycle, knocked him down and ran over him. Having so injured Upen Boro, the accused-driver took the injured to a nursing home for medical treatment, but the injured succumbed to his injuries some time after reaching the said nursing home. Based on the information, which was so lodged, in writing, by an assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Fatasil ambari Police Station Case No. 95/1998 under S. 279/304, I. P. C. was registered against accused-Hemanta Bora and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, on 20-11-2001, seeking prosecution of the accused aforementioned for offences allegedly committed by him under Ss. 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. (ii) By order, dated 20-11-2001, learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, guwahati, took cognizance of the offences as reflected from the charge-sheet and directed issuance of summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, particulars of offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. were explained to the accused-petitioner, but the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto. The trial, then, proceeded against the accused-petitioner. On 15-11-2006, the accused-petitioner made an application, in the case, stating to the effect, inter alia, that since the occurrence had allegedly taken place as far back as on 29-7-1998 and the cognizance had been taken as late as on 16-10-2002, the taking of cognizance by the learned trial Court, without condoning the delay and without extending the period of limitation in terms of S. 473 of the Code was wholly illegal and, hence, the case lodged against him may be dismissed and the accused may be acquitted. By the order, dated 28-12-2006, as the learned trial Court has rejected the accused-petitioner's prayer for dismissing the case and has fixed the case for evidence, the accused-petitioner has impugned the order, dated 28-12-2006, aforementioned, by making this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assam, appearing on behalf of the opposite party.