STATE OF J AND K Vs. JOGINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Police reports under sections 435/436 R.P.C. were presented before the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Bhader wall. Vide order impugned in this petition passed on 26.7.1984, the learned trial Judge has discharged the respondents and di8Tllissed the police reports on the ground that both two challans were time barred. While taking this view, that the- two challans were time barred, learned Judge has pressed into aid the proviso to section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sub-section (1) of section 173 Cr. P.C. which is relevant for our purpose and which contains the proviso relied upon by the trial Judge reads as under: p173 Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay: Provided that investigation into offences under Sections 152, 153-A, 295, 295-A, 296, 297, 298,435,436 and 505 of the State Ranbir Penal Code shall be completed within two weeks and if the investigation is not so completed the investigating officer shall report the causes of the delay to the District Superintendent of Police who shall issue necessary instructions for completion of the investigation. The only requirement of law mentioned in the proviso quoted above is that the investigation into the offences mentioned therein should be completed within two weeks and if the investigation is not so completed, the Investigating Officer shall report the causes of delay to the District Suptd. of police-who shall issue necessary instructions for early completion of the investigation. The prescribed period of two weeks has a direct relation t9 the opening part of sub-section which lays down that every investigation under Chapter 14 shall be completed without any unnecessary delay. While therefore, sub-section (1) in general terms lays down that further investigation under Chapter 14 shall be completed without any unnecessary delay. Proviso specifically deals with subsection and provides that in respect of offences mentioned therein, investigation shall be completed in two weeks.

(3.) the question which arises for consideration is whether the consequence of non-completion of the investigation the prescribed period of two weeks, or for that matter the non-completion of the, investigation without even unnecessary delay can result in the offences becoming time barred and directing the accused to be discharged. For answering this question, one has to turn to section 538-B of the Code which defines the limitation and prescribes the period of limitation in respect of certain offences in section (2) thereafter. According to section 538-B, no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as is prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 538-B. Three categories of offences have been included in sub-section (2) and the period of limitation prescribed ranges from six months to three years. A plain reading of subsection (2) of section 538-B leads one to clearly hold that the maximum period of limitations of three years is restricted to only those offences where the punishment, prescribed is more than three years, no period of limitations has been prescribed under the code.