Skip to content


Deendayal Kishanchand and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1983CriLJ1583; (1983)1GLR324
AppellantDeendayal Kishanchand and ors.
RespondentState of Gujarat
Excerpt:
- .....is submitted with a grievance that the courts below have committed an error in accepting the charge-sheet and not dismissing the complaint as beyond the period of limitation.2. it is a patent fact that the petitioners-accused are prosecuted for a prohibition offence, and the complaint was filed on 3-6-1976, while the charge-sheet was submitted on 1-12-1978. the period of limitation for such cases under section 468 of the cr. p.c. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') is one year, because the offences with which the accused were charged are offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.3. it was the case of the prosecution that two accused, i. e. present petitioners nos. 4 and 5, who are ladies, were not available to be produced before the court.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.V. Bedarkar, J.

1. This petition is submitted with a grievance that the Courts below have committed an error in accepting the charge-sheet and not dismissing the complaint as beyond the period of limitation.

2. It is a patent fact that the petitioners-accused are prosecuted for a Prohibition offence, and the complaint was filed on 3-6-1976, while the charge-sheet was submitted on 1-12-1978. The period of limitation for such cases under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is one year, because the offences with which the accused were charged are offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

3. It was the case of the prosecution that two accused, i. e. present petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, who are ladies, were not available to be produced before the Court along with the charge-sheet, even though earlier they were released on bail. Therefore, as the Court refused to accept the charge-sheet unless all the accused are produced, the charge-sheet could not be submitted, and ultimately also, by a specific letter, it seems from the record, the charge-sheet was submitted without accused Nos. 4 and 5. This is very clear from the evidence on record.

4.-8. xx xx xx xx xx

9. I must say at this stage that the refusal by criminal Courts eitherthrough the learned Magistrate or through their office staff to accept thecharge-sheet without production of the accused persons is not justified by anyprovision of law. Therefore, it should be impressed upon all the Courts thatthey should accept the charge-sheet whenever it is produced by the police withany endorsement to be made on the charge-sheet by the staff or the Magistratepertaining to any omission or requirement in the charge-sheet. But when thepolice submit the charge-sheet, it is the duty of the Court to accept itespecially in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code which creates alimitation of taking cognizance of offence. Likewise, police authorities also should impress on all police officers that if charge-sheet is not accepted for any such reason, then attention of the Sessions Judge should be drawn to these facts and get suitable orders so that such difficulties would not arise henceforth.

10. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Stay vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //