Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In three criminal revision petitions presented by accused Nos. 2 to 6 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who heard the revisions felt that there was conflict in limitation spelt out in chapter of the code and in sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act. She also seems to have felt that whereas Section 468(1) of the Code prohibited a Court from taking cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation, under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act, the Court could take cognizance with the special sanction of the State Government. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge seems to have seen repugnancy in the two provisions as aforesaid. The Additional Sessions Judge further felt that the two provisions in sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act and chapter XXXVI of the Code which is a Central enactment and later in point of time are contrary to one another and the provisions of the code should prevail over the provisions of the Act. As the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Act had not been declared invalid or inoperative, by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the Addl. Sessions Judge made this reference acting under Section 395(1) of the Code.

(1) 5. Ramchandra Reddy v. P. N. Ravindra Reddy and Anr., 1991 (2) Crimes Page 230, (2) Ajmer Singh etc. v. Union of India, 1987 Criminal Appeals reported 236, (3) Matajod Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44, and (4) Food Inspector, Berhampur Municipality v. M. P. Mohd. Rao and Ors., 1988 Cri.L.J. 1534.

6. It is not proposed to deal in this order with the question whether the sanction accorded by the State Government in respect of prosecution of accused No. 1 Kantilal after expiry of period of six months stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act could be considered against other, co-accused because the point cannot be said to be arising from the reference under Section 395(1) made by the Addl. Sessions Judge to this Court.