Karnataka High Court
Bhaskar Hanamatse Meharwade vs State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992CRILJ3985, ILR1992KAR2272
ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 18-9-91 passed by the Additional Munsiff and II Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur in C.C. No. 49/89.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.
3. The police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on 16-1-1990 for the offences punishable under S. 279 and 304A I.P.C. and also for the offences under S. 89(A) and (B) of the M.V. Act on the allegation that the petitioner on 19-12-1988 at about 8-30 p.m. drove his motor-cycle bearing No. CEW 9358 on Poona-Bangalore road from the bus-stand side in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the deceased Hanumanthappa in front of Kambli Society and caused grievous injuries to his head resulting in his death. The evidence has commenced in the Court below and the prosecution has examined some witnesses. The prosecution filed an application under S. 216 Cr.P.C. for addition of the charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. had allowed it. The petitioner has challenged the said order.
4. A charge can be amended at any time by the Court if it does not cause prejudice to the accused and if it is necessary in the interest of justice. It also cannot be disputed in this case that the offences sought to be added by the amendment of the charge under Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. can be tried along with the offence under section 304 and other offences included in the original charge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that offence that is said to be added i.e. under sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. will be punishable only with imprisonment for six months which is 1/4th of the punishment provided for the offence under Section 304A I.P.C. and on the date when the order came to be passed i.e. on 18-9-1991 the Court cannot take cognizance of these two offences as it would be beyond the period of limitation of one year.
5. In State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the object and scope of Section 468 as follows at Page 723; of Cri LJ :-
"The object of Criminal P.C. in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions 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 the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of the fairness of trial as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation."
He also relied on 1982 (1) Cri LJ page 734 in K. Hanumantha Rao v. K. Narasimha Rao and others, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as follows at Page 741 & 742; of Cri LJ :-
"20. To sum up, a statutory obligation is placed upon the Court under S. 468 Cr.P.C. not to take cognizance of the offences of the categories specified in sub-section (2) thereof after lapse of the period of limitation. The Code does not provide an opportunity to the accused of being heard on the bar of limitation enacted under S. 468 of the Code before taking cognizance of offences of the categories specified in sub-section (2) thereof. The Code does not also envisage issue of any process against the accused before taking cognizance of the offence. Any cognizance of the offence taken by the Court is subject to defeasance of the cognizance on the ground of limitation and it is open to the accused to plead before the Court in response to the process issued to him that the complaint or the challan filed against him and taken cognizance of by the Court is barred by limitation. Such a plea can be raised by the accused at any time during the trial. Section 473 confers a discretion upon the Court to take cognizance of the offences of the categories specified in sub-section (2) of S. 468 after expiry of the period of limitation if the Court is satisfied, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the delay in the institution of the prosecution has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. The discretion given to the Court is very wide though it must be exercised judiciously on well recognized principles. No hard and fast rules can be laid down as to how the discretion can be exercised in a given case. Even when the Court takes cognizance of any of the offences of the categories specified in sub-section (2) of S. 468 after applying its mind to the provisions of S. 473, of the Code, it is open to the offender to plead before the Court after conclusion of S. 473 are not attracted or complied with. Where the Court takes cognizance of a major offence against an accused person, but finds him guilty of a minor offence, it is open to the accused to plead that conviction for the minor offence is bad if the complaint or the challan is filed against him beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the minor offence subject to the residual power of the Court to exercise its discretion under S. 473, Cr.P.C."
It cannot be disputed that the Court cannot take cognizance beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 468 Cr.P.C. But in this case, it cannot be said that the Court has violated the law laid down in Section 468 Cr.P.C. by adding Section 201 and 202 I.P.C. to the charge. Because, when the offences are tried together, it is Sub-section (3) of Section 468 that will come into play. Section 468 Cr.P.C. reads as follows :-
"Section 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. - (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
It cannot be disputed in this case that Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. can be tried along with Section 468 Cr.P.C. The period of limitation will have to be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the most severe punishment. In this case the offence under section 304A is punishable with imprisonment for two years and the period of limitation will be three years. Therefore, adding of Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C. is well within time. The above rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel do not help the petitioner in this case as they are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. I do not find that the order suffers from any such infirmities. Hence, I make the following order :-
Petition is not admitted. It is dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.