Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Shripad Janardan Phadke and Rajendra Jaswantlal Seth, were accused in S.T.C. No. 651/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur, for offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a handbill stuck on a wall at Navapur Bus Station on 7-12-1998, which allegedly criticized Lord Jesus Christ and promoted disharmony between Hindus and Christians. The first information report was lodged on 8-12-1998. The charge sheet was filed on 26-2-2005. The applicants filed applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) before the Magistrate contending that the charge sheet was filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thus cognizance could not be taken. The Magistrate rejected these applications by a common order dated 26-3-2013. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the High Court invoking its inherent powers. The High Court examined the limitation period for the offences. Section 153-A IPC prescribes a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to three years, but the court noted that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the specific offence under Section 153-A(1)(a) is two years. Section 295-A IPC also prescribes a maximum punishment of two years. Therefore, under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC, the limitation period for taking cognizance is three years. The offence occurred on 7-12-1998, and the charge sheet was filed on 26-2-2005, which is beyond three years. The court held that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the applications and that the cognizance was barred by limitation. The High Court allowed the criminal application, quashed the Magistrate's order, and allowed the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17), thereby barring cognizance of the offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Limitation for Taking Cognizance - Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bar to Cognizance - The issue was whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under Sections 153-A and 295-A IPC when the charge sheet was filed beyond the limitation period of three years from the date of the offence. The court held that the maximum punishment for both offences is two years, thus the limitation period is three years under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC. Since the charge sheet was filed on 26-2-2005, more than six years after the offence on 7-12-1998, the cognizance was barred. The Magistrate's order rejecting the applications was quashed and the applications were allowed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the IPC was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the charge sheet was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
Final Decision
The Criminal Application is allowed. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur, dated 26-3-2013, rejecting the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) is quashed and set aside. The applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) are allowed. Consequently, the cognizance of the offences is barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation for taking cognizance
- Section 468 CrPC
- Bar to cognizance after expiry of limitation period
- Computation of limitation period
- Offences punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years
