TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved of the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before Sessions Court. It was all to depend not only on the facts and circumstances of each case For the purpose of computing limitation, it is the date of the complaint that is material and not the date on which the cognizance come to be taken by the Magistrate and the process was issued against the petitioner. The subsequent stages such as examination of complainant and the witnesses, the consideration of the case, the preliminary inquiry etc. take considerable time and it would therefore, be unreasonable and irrational to compute the period of limitation from the date when the cognizance was taken or the process was issued. Furthermore, these processes are dependent on various factors including the time available to the court which is something over which the complainant has no control. It would, thus, be wholly untenable to hold that a complaint if presented within the period of limitation would be barred merely because a certain amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ACP conducted an enquiry and submitted a report concluding that an offence under section 406/420 IPC is prima facie made out. On the basis of this report the DPC directed P.S. Lahori Gate to register an FIR whereupon FIR No. 492/1999 under section 406/420 IPC was registered against the petitioner. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under section 406 IPC and the trial court took cognizance under section 406 IPC vide its order dated 16.02.2002. The petitioner filed a criminal writ in this court for quashing of the FIR and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2003 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the trial court as the charge- sheet had already been filed in the case. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under section 406 IPC vide its order dated 12.05.2006. This order was challenged in the court of Ld. ASJ under section 397 Cr.P.C. wherein the order of the Ld. MM framing charge against the petitioner was upheld vide impugned order dated 19.09.2007. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant objected to the maintainability of the petition submitting that though the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abuse of process of court or there was serious miscarriage of justice or the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. The power could also be exercised by this Court if there was an apparent mistake committed by the revisional court. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Aggarwal, AIR SC 87, Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1980 Cri.L.J. 202, Krishnan Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni Anr and Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr (2005) 2 SCC 571. 6. Now having seen the dictum of law that the second revision petition was ordinarily not to be entertained by this court and it was only in those cases which would come within the parameters of invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that such a petition could be entertained, I may proceed to see as to whether the instant petition, fall within that category of cases which require invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under these provisions. 7. The submissions of learned counsel for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int, as briefly noted above, it is seen that the petitioner had refused to return the file which was taken by him in good faith due to ongoing business relations with the complainant and also on the assurance to return the same after sorting out the difference in the account. 9. For the purpose of computing limitation, it is the date of the complaint that is material and not the date on which the cognizance come to be taken by the Magistrate and the process was issued against the petitioner. The subsequent stages such as examination of complainant and the witnesses, the consideration of the case, the preliminary inquiry etc. take considerable time and it would therefore, be unreasonable and irrational to compute the period of limitation from the date when the cognizance was taken or the process was issued. Furthermore, these processes are dependent on various factors including the time available to the court which is something over which the complainant has no control. It would, thus, be wholly untenable to hold that a complaint if presented within the period of limitation would be barred merely because a certain amount of time elapsed until the cognizance could be taken or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and Judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 13. In view of my above discussion and having seen that the present case was at the stage of framing of charges and that both the courts below have appreciated the allegations against the petitioner and have formed a prima facie view of the framing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
