Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)
Ajay Awasthi Alias Ajay Kumar Awasthi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2023 cites

Sarah Mathew vs Inst., Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors on 26 November, 2013

Sub-section (b) thereof comes into play when the date of offence is not known to the person aggrieved or any police officer, and sub-section (c) comes into play when the identity of the offender is not known to the person aggrieved or any police officer. In the present matter, the date of offence and identity of the alleged offender are not unknown to the opposite party no.2, and hence, the case in hand is required to be dealt with under section 469 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.; There is another aspect of the matter that the amendment of section 509 I.P.C. in the year 2013 (w.e.f. 03.02.2013) has enhanced the punishment from one year to three years but when the date of offence is not available, it is incomprehensible to apply the amended provision of section 509 I.P.C. in the present matter. Even otherwise, the amended provision of section 509 I.P.C. also does not aid the opposite party no.2 to get the prosecution continued because the confidential report of the complaint's committee discloses the time-period of the year 2011, as already noted, which is also beyond the period of four years from the date of initiation of prosecution on 14.04.2016. The Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court, in the case of Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director and others, (2014) 2 SCC 62 upheld the verdict of Japani Sahoo's case (supra) and has held that the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of insitution of prosecution to compute the period of limitation under section 468 Cr.P.C. Thus, the date of offence and the date of filing of complaint/institution of prosecution are the two time-stones required to be ascertained for the computation of the period of limitation. In the present matter, the date of institution of prosecution is 14.04.2016, but the date of offence is absent, and the case in hand does not fall under the sub-section (b) and (c) of section 468 (1) of Cr.P.C. and hence, according to the settled law, the present prosecution is barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 234 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Sanjay Awasthi And Ors. on 15 July, 2003

1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.27720 of 2017 (State Vs. Ajay Awasthi) as well as for quashing the charge-sheet dated 15.5.2017 and order of cognizance dated 31.5.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-VIII, District Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2016, under Section 509 I.P.C., P.S. Harbansh Mohal, District Kanpur Nagar.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Y Singh - Full Document
1