NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Nand Lal for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Kaithal, under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that a First Information Report No. 113 dated 3.3.1983 was registered against the petitioner under Section 10 of the,aforesaid Act. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on August 18, 1984. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case and framed the charge against the petitioner.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was barred from taking cognizance of the case in view of the Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Act'). There is merit in this objection. It is conceded that the challan was presented before the trial Magistrate about two months after the expiry of the period of limitation provided in Section 468 of the Code. It is so held by the learned trial Court in its order dated March 24, 1987. It is further undisputed that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence the delay was not condoned under Section 473 of the Code. In these circumstances evidently by the trial is vitiated. The Supreme Court held in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1054, that the object of Section 468 of the Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence. It was observed that the object of the Act which the statute seeks to sub -serve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Articles 21 of the Constitution of India. It was consequently ruled that any prosecution whether by the State or by a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of prosecution failing on the ground of limitation.