Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Praturi Venkata Siva Rama Durga Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.By Its ... on 18 June, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.10523 of 2016
Between:
# Paturi Venkata Siva Rama Durga Prasad
S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Home, A.P. Secretariat Buildings.
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 18.06.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.10523 of 2016
% 18.06.2024
Between:
# Paturi Venkata Siva Rama Durga Prasad
S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Home, A.P. Secretariat Buildings.
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Raghu
Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy
Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Home
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. MANU/AP/0977/2016
3
APHC010361922016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10523/2016
Between:
Praturi Venkata Siva Rama Durga Prasad ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
2. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed calling for the records in CC No.66 of 2015 on
the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional
Junior Civil Judge at Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District and quash the same.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent by order in
proceedings Rc.45/03/Z- II/B4 dated 08.01.2004 accorded authorization to the
4th respondent to file a criminal case against the petitioner. The sum and
substance of the order is that an enquiry under Sec.51 of A.P.Cooperative
Societies Act 1964 has been ordered by appointing Cooperative Sub-
Registrar/ Divisional Cooperative Officer as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry
in to the affairs of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited of
Vemaravarm. The enquiry officer has unearthed certain cases of defalcations
of funds of the society and established evidence from the record of the society
about the criminal liability involved under various sections of IPC and
recommended for sanction of prosecution against Sri P.V.S.R.D.Prasad, who
is the petitioner herein the ex- secretary of PACS Ltd, in Vastavai Mandal.
Pursuant to the said sanction order of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent
after laps of 8 years has filed a written complaint dated 02-07-2012 to the 2nd
respondent to register complaint against the petitioner herein. Upon receipt
of the said written complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a case in
FIR.No.75 of 2012, dated 09-07-2012 against the petitioner under Sec.403,
408 and 420 IPC. In the said crime, the 2nd respondent has filed Charge
Sheet on 19-03-2013 by examining 6 witnesses and charge the accused is
liable to be punished under Sec. 403, 408 and 420 IPC as he misappropriated
the funds of the society and utilized the funds for his own accord, as such, he
committed cheating. It is further submitted that for the offences under
Sec.408 and 420 the period of limitation to take cognizance is 7 years and
whereas the sanction for prosecution was accorded on
08-01-2004 and the complaint was filed on 07-07-2012 i.e., beyond 7 years of
period. Period of Limitation and thereby the court shall not take cognizance of
the offences referred in the charge sheet after expiry of period of limitation.
Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.Raghu, learned counsel representing Mr. Sai Gangadhar
Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
averments made in the petition. To support his contentions, learned counsel
has placed reliance on a decision of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Bajaj
Finance Ltd., Vs State of A.P. and others1, wherein it was held that:
Section 468 is incorporated with a view to put a bar of limitation on prosecution and 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 process of the Court by filing
vexatious and belated, prosecutions long after the date of offence.
The Court is duty bound on presentation of charge sheet to consider the question of
limitation and to see as to whether it is competent to take cognizance and whether
limitation has expired or not. In case limitation has expired, when it has no jurisdiction
to take cognizance and in disregard of the provision, if the Court takes cognizance,
the order of taking cognizance would be without jurisdiction.
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-
MANU/AP/0977/2016
(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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing the above decision
requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while
denying the allegations made in the petition, as per instructions received from
the Station House Officer, Vatsavai PS, NTR District, would contend that, the
respondent police after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet and the
same was numbered as CC No.66 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Jaggaiahpet and the case is posted to 16.2.2024
for examination of LWs.5 and 6.
7. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, in the present
case, pursuant to the sanction order of the 3rd respondent dated 08.01.2004,
the 4th respondent after lapse of 8 years has filed a written complaint to the 2nd
respondent to register complaint against the petitioner. Upon receipt of the
said complaint, the 2nd respondent registered FIR No.75 of 2012 dated
9.7.2012 under Sections 403, 408 and 420 IPC. It is further observed that, in
the said crime, the 2nd respondent after completion of investigation, charge
sheet has also been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that for the offences under Section 408 and 420 the period of
limitation to take cognizance is 7 years and whereas the sanction for
prosecution was accorded on 8.1.2004 and the complaint was filed on
07.07.2012 i.e., beyond 7 years.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 408 IPC, reads as
under:
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant,
and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any
dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on
perusing the decision of this Court referred to above, it is observed that, as
per Section 468 IPC, the Court is duty bound on presentation of charge sheet
to consider the question of limitation and to see as to whether it is competent
to take cognizance and whether limitation has expired or not. In case
limitation has expired, when it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and in
disregard of the provision, if the Court takes cognizance, the order of taking
cognizance would be without jurisdiction.
10. In view of the foregoing discussing, this Court feels that the
complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, this Court deems fit to
quash the proceedings.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The C.C No.66 of 2015 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in
the writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18-06-2024
Note: L.R copy to be marked.
(b/o)Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10523 of 2016
Date : .06.2024
Gvl
