Gauhati High Court
Accused Petitioner vs The State Of Assam on 4 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010056782017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Criminal Petition No. 1007 Of 2017
Sri. Biren Ch. Deka,
Son of Late Rishav Ch. Deka,
Resident of Kahilipara,
Near Forensic Science Laboratory
Mahindra Up-Path Bye Lane,
P.S- Dispur
District- Kamrup (Metro)
----- Accused Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Assam
2. Mrs. Minakshi Deka,
Wife of Late Pranjit Deka,
Resident of House No. 90,
Narengi Housing Colony,
Santa Manika Housing Complex ,
Narengi, Guwahati,
District- Kamrup (Metro),
Pin No. 781026
----- Opposite Parties
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Advocates for the Petitioner :: Mr. AM Bora, Senior Counsel,
Mr. S Borthakur, Counsel.
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 :: Mr. RJ Baruah, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 :: Mr. P Mahanta, Counsel
Date of hearing & judgment ::4th of March, 2021.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral)
Heard Mr. AM Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Borthakur, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
appearing for the State respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2.
[2] This petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is filed seeking quashment of the
order, dated 20.06.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro),
Guwahati in GR Case No. 413/2016, arising out of CID P.S. Case No. 03/2016, by which order,
cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioner, under Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the
Assam Police Act, 2007.
[3] I have perused the petition as well as the impugned order.
[4] Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted, referring to the
provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.PC, that in the instant case, cognizance was taken after
Page No.# 3/5
the period of limitation for taking cognizance was over. He has further referred to the
provisions of Section 469 of the Cr.PC to apprise the Court as to the date of commencement
of the period of limitation. He has submitted that in the instant case, the State Police
Accountability Commission (in short, SPAC) had given a direction, on the basis of a complaint
made by the respondent No. 2, dated 20.04.2013, to register a case against the petitioner.
[5] On receipt of the FIR, filed by the CID, a case was registered under Sections
166A/201/217/218/466 of the IPC, read with Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the Assam Police Act,
2007.
[6] This Court would like to note here that the SPAC recommended initiation of an
FIR/filing of a case against the petitioner, vide its recommendation, dated 15.02.2014. After
registration of the case, as aforesaid, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet, after
completion of investigation, under Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.
[7] Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
punishment prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner is charge-sheeted. The
punishment prescribed for such offences are imprisonment for 3 (three) months or with a fine
which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) or with both. He has further referred to the
provisions of Section 106 of the aforesaid Assam Police Act, 2007 to submit that the limitation
for taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions of law is as provided in Section 468 of
the Cr.PC.
[8] According to Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
came to know about the offence in the instant case from the order passed by the SPAC on
15.02.2014. In the instant case, the charge-sheet was laid on 24.02.2017 and cognizance
Page No.# 4/5
was taken by the learned court below on 20.06.2017. Therefore, Mr. Bora, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, submits that period of limitation be counted from the date of
knowledge in respect of commission of offence by the petitioner till the date of filing of the
charge-sheet, excluding the period of time required for obtaining prosecution for sanction.
[9] Such argument canvassed before this Court by Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, has been resisted by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2
on the ground that from the date of knowledge of the alleged offences committed by the
respondent No. 2, excluding the time taken for obtaining sanction for prosecution, the
charge-sheet was laid within the period of limitation.
[10] According to Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the period of
limitation has to be calculated from the date of registration of the case, i.e., 12.01.2016.
[11] There is no dispute at the bar that in the instant case, the date of knowledge and
date of registration of the case are different. The date of knowledge, on the basis of the
materials on record appears to be the date on which SPAC recommended initiation of
prosecution against the respondent No. 2 and date of registration of the case is after 2 (two)
years of the aforesaid recommendation of the SPAC.
[12] On visiting the provisions of Section 469 of the Cr.PC, this Court has failed to
persuade itself to accept the proposition that the date of limitation should be counted from
the date of registration of the case in the instant case, particularly when no such provision is
made by the legislature in Section 469 of the Cr.PC, rather, the provision is very specific in
Section 469 (1)(b) of the Cr.PC that limitation be counted from the date of knowledge of
commission of the offence. From this point of view, the charge-sheet in the instant case was
Page No.# 5/5
laid beyond the period of limitation.
[13] Since the charge-sheet in the instant case is laid, as indicated above, beyond the
period of limitation, in the considered view of this Court, learned court below could not have
taken cognizance for the offence by the impugned order, dated 20.06.2017.
[14] In view of the above, the aforesaid GR Case No. 413/2016, pending in the court
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati is quashed with a view
to prevent the abuse of the process of court.
[15] This criminal petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
