Ronny v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 3 RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 99/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:`** ``` RONNY AGED 45 YEARS S/O JAMES , RESIDING AT MLAVILA PADINJATTATHIL, MULAVANA, KOLLAM-691503. ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) SRI.K.G.ALEXANDER C. Rajendran R.S.SREEVIDYA(K/429/2007) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 691018. ``` ``` 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691501. ``` ``` 3 MERIDASAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O BERNARD, RESIDING AT VANICHIPOIKA MELATHIL, KANJIRAMKODE, PERAYAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691589. ``` ``` SRI.M P PRASHANTH, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No. 99/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as per the final report lodged before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, is that the informant, a certain Meridasan, was functioning as an Overseer in the KSEB office at Perumpuzha. It is alleged that on 20.4.2018 at about 11.00 pm, while the informant was standing in front of the gate of the Elampalloor temple, the accused approached him and fisted him on his face. It is further alleged that the informant was pushed down and he was kicked on the various parts of his body. The information to that effect was allegedly furnished to the police on 21.4.2018. However, it was only much later he came to know that no crime had been registered. It was in the said circumstances that he approached the Police on 6.9.2019 at about 10.40 pm and lodged the statement, based on which Crime No.1964/2019 was registered on ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 3 ``` 6.9.2019 inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC. After investigation, final report was laid before the learned Magistrate. 4. Sri. C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the punishment provided for the offence under Section 323 is simple imprisonment for a period which may extend to one year or with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Insofar as Section 341 is concerned, the punishment provided is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine, which may extend to Rs 500. It is submitted that the lodging of the statement was after a year much after the period of limitation. It is further submitted that though an allegation is raised that the information was furnished to the police immediately after the incident no materials are placed along with the final report to substantiate the said aspect. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions. Relying on the prosecution records, it is submitted that the materials collected by the prosecution clearly substantiate the prosecution's allegations. 6. Though notice was issued to the party respondent and the same was served, there is no appearance. ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 4 ``` 7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Records reveal that the specific accusation in the final report is that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the informant and had committed hurt on 20.4.2018. The law was, however, set in motion only on 06.09.2019, almost after one year and five months. 8. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C speaks about the bar to taking cognizance after the period of limitation. The said provision reads thus: 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.] ## 9. In **Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni and Others[ 1 ] ,** the question before the Apex Court was with regard to the interpretation of Section 468 > 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 266 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 5 ``` of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the law laid down in **Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cheriyan and others[ 2 ]** . It was observed as follows in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment: 8. In Sarah Mathew, the Constitution Bench of this Court examined two questions thus: 3. No specific questions have been referred to us. But, in our opinion, the following questions arise for our consideration: 3.1. (i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under S.468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? 3.2. (ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T. A. Rajendran, (1990) Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down the correct law? 9. The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows: 51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under S.468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra > 2 (2014) 2 SCC 102 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 6 ``` Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394] lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T. A. Rajendran, (1990) Supp SCC 121 : (1990) SCC (Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under S.468 CrPC. 10. Therefore, the enunciations and declaration of law by the Constitution Bench do not admit of any doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under S.468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. In the case on hand, the offence under Section 323 is punishable with imprisonment for a period of one year, and Section 341 is punishable with imprisonment for a period of one month. Going by Section 468, the period of limitation would be one year. In terms of the law laid down in **Amritlal** (Supra), the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Though it is stated in the FI statement that the complaint was lodged before the police on the next day of the incident, there is no material to substantiate the same. It can only be concluded that such an assertion is made to escape the bar of limitation. As the complaint in the instant case was filed after one year and five months, the ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 7 ``` same is barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained under law. Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No. 99 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5398 OF 2020 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5398/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED 06.09.2019 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ``` - `ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 99/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE JFMC-1, KOLLAM DATED 28/01/2020.` - `ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.04.2018 AT ABOUT 01.40 a.m.` - `ANNEXURE-A3(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2018.` - `ANNEXURE-A3(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 15.12.2015.` - `ANNEXURE-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT FOR NON MEDICO LEGAL CASES AND AUTHORISATION FOR RELEASE OF BODY DATED 22.03.2020.` - `ANNEXURE-A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 21.04.2018 OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINT AT 06.30.p.m.`