Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Criminal Proceedings Unless There Are Specific Provisions To That Effect: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to criminal proceedings unless express and specific provisions to that effect are contained in the statute. Justice Gautam Chourdiya thus held that there is no specific bar that if complaint of electricity theft is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity, cognizance of the offence...
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to criminal proceedings unless express and specific provisions to that effect are contained in the statute.
Justice Gautam Chourdiya thus held that there is no specific bar that if complaint of electricity theft is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity, cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act cannot be taken.
The order stated,
"The general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". The principle is reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance. Article 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the Act."
The Court was dealing with a revision petition filed under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the CrPC, challenging an order framing charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
In the prosecution's case, the police authorities received a complaint reporting electricity theft at a brick kiln by illegal tapping. After that, an inquest report, spot inspection report, and Panchnama were prepared, and articles were seized. An FIR was lodged a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The trial court framed charges against the applicant on the charges above.
Advocate Uttam Pandey, appearing for the applicant, argued that the mandatory condition of lodging a complaint within 24 hours under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was not complied with. In the present case, the offence was committed on 17.03.2010, but the written complaint was filed only after a delay of three days, i.e., on 20.03.2010.
However, noting that there is no material to show that the complaint in writing was not made within 24 hours from the disconnect, the Court held that the proceedings cannot be quashed and there is a prima facie case against the applicant.
It reiterated the settled principle that a crime is considered wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. It observed,
"Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict."
On whether the written complaint was lodged after 24 hours of disconnection of electricity, the Court noted that it is a matter of evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to take cognizance as per Section 151, 151A & 151B of the Electricity Act. It observed,
"It is not mandatory as there is no any specific bar that if complaint is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act cannot be taken."
Dismissing the petition, it opined that the trial court was right in framing charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act based on the material placed before it.
Case Title: Ravindra Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 10