BALRAM SINGH Vs. SUKHWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J .S. Sekhon, J. - Admitted.

(2.) IN view of the decision of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2985-M of 1988, Renu and ors. v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 12-2-1990 as well as the decision rendered by A.P. Chowdhri J. in Hakam Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab and others, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 442 the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is continuing one till the husband returns the Istri Dhan to wis wife, whereas S. D. Bajaj, J. in Gurvel Singh v. Rajinder Singh, 1990 Marriage Law Journal 131 has held to the contrary. Although it appears that the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagirath Kanoria and others vs, The State of M. P., 1985(1) CLR 112 was not brought to the notice of brother Bajaj, J. but all the same keeping in view that this controversy being of vital nature and likely to crop up in so many other matters, it does call for authoritative view of a Larger Bench on this point. Therefore, the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench.

(3.) CHAPTER XXXVI (Sections 467 to 473) relating to limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences was added in the Cod-of Cr. P. 1973, for the first time. Section 467 relates to definitions. Section 468 prescribes the period of limitation for various offences, a smaller period of limitation having been prescribed for offences punishable with smaller imprisonment and larger period of limitation being prescribed for offences punishable with greater imprisonment. The period of limitation for offences punishable upto three years, is three years. The offence under section 406 would fall in this category unless it was held to be a continuing offence. Section 469 relates to commencement of the period of limitation. Sections 470 and, 471 deal with exclusion of time in certain cases. Section 472 lays down that in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. And lastly section 473 empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained or that it was necessary so to do in the interest of justice.