TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant filed a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur, against the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 complaining of offences punishable under sections 323 and 354 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint came to be registered on 17-10-1973. The case was a warrant case and was treated as such by the trial Court. Some witnesses were examined and eventually on 29th March 1975 a charge came to be framed against the accused persons only under section 447 read with section 34 and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, there were some adjournments. The case was 6xed for evidence after charge for 6-9-1975. On that date neither the complainant nor his advocate nor his witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons. 4. Miss Vaidya appearing for the respondents Nos. I to 5 has taken a preliminary objection. She contends that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, would have no application to an appeal filed by private complainant under the provisions of section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Such an appeal has to be dismissed if it is filed after an expiry of the period of 60 days stipulated under the provisions of section 378 (5). For this proposition she has placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh A I R 1964 S C 260. 5. Another contention put forth by Miss Vaidya for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 is that although this case started as a warrant case, eventually the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, a difference in this matter has been created by the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which has clearly made all the provisions of the said Limitation Act, under sections 2 to 24 (inclusive) applicable to cases where a special period of limitation different from that prescribed in the Limitation Act, is prescribed by any special or local law. The terminology of the provisions of section 378 of sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is the same as it was before under the provisions of analogous sub-section of section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. There are no express words either in section 417, sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or in sub-sections (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Singh v. Gurbux Singh 1967 Cri. L J 1447. In this decision, the entire case law on the point has been discussed and it has been held : Once the trial is rightly started as the trial of a warrant case, there is no provision in the Code under which at a later stage the procedure can be changed to one prescribed for trial of a summons case. It is absolutely immaterial that the charge which is framed may relate to an offence triable as a summons case. If the change of procedure is permitted in most of the cases, it may act to the prejudice of the accused inasmuch as he may lose the right of double cross-examination. In this Division Bench case of the Punjab High Court, the earlier decision of the same High Court in Daulat Ram v. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
