Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Period U/S.469 CrPC Is Date Of Knowledge Of Police Officer: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Sections 397, 401, read with Section 482 of the CrPC, against the Order allowing CBI’s Application for condonation of delay in filing the Chargesheet in a case registered under Section 168 of the IPC.

Referring to Section 469 of the CrPC, the Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “It is, therefore, evident that the period of limitation is to commence from the date of knowledge of the police officer.”

“The claim of the CBI that subsequently the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted in which statements of the witnesses were recorded and the offence was prima facie made out, is not tenable as the documents disclosing the alleged commission of offence relate back to 24.11.1995. The commencement of the period of limitation, therefore, commences from 24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, and not from the date of registration of the present RC on 24.11.1997”, it added.

Advocate Anita Sahani represented the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that one Brahampal Singh, Assistant Director and other officials of the Horticulture Department of MCD, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the wife of the Petitioner Bachu Singh, proprietor of M/s. Royal Enterprises. Investigations ensued, and further Intelligence Reports were received that the Petitioner Bachu Singh had been carrying on private business, though he was a Public Servant. On the basis of this Intelligence Report, a Preliminary Enquiry was registered, and summons were issued to several witnesses under Section 160 Cr.P.C., including the present Petitioner, who was examined by CBI. On June 13, 1997, a case was registered under Section 168 IPC. After completion of investigations, a Chargesheet for the offence under Section 168 IPC was filed against the Petitioner before the MM. Along with the Chargesheet, an Application was also filed seeking condonation of the delay of one-and-a-half months in filing the Chargesheet. The Application was allowed, and the Summons was issued to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous to challenge the Order condoning the delay in filing the Chargesheet. The Petition was allowed by the High Court, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the condonation Application afresh, after hearing both parties. The Trial Court held that the knowledge of CBI regarding the commission of the offence by the Accused was the day when the FIR was registered. It was observed that before then, only the facts were being verified, and it could not be said that the CBI was aware of the commission of the offence by the Accused or that it delayed the investigations deliberately. The contentions of the Petitioner claiming that the Chargesheet was barred by limitation was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the case had a checkered history and had travelled from 1995 till date. It was the third time that the condonation Application was allowed by the MM, which was under challenge.

The Bench took note of the fact that the initial PE was recorded under Section 168 IPC, which is punishable with the sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. The Bench noticed that as per Section 468 of the IPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance for an offence punishable with one-year and/or fine has been prescribed as not exceeding one-year. Referring to Section 469 CrPC, which deals with the date of commencement of the period of limitation, the Bench held that the period of limitation is to commence from the date of knowledge of the police officer.

“The claim of the CBI that subsequently the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted in which statements of the witnesses were recorded and the offence was prima facie made out, is not tenable as the documents disclosing the alleged commission of offence relate back to 24.11.1995”, it stated while also adding, “The present Chargesheet in this RC has been filed in the Court on 28.07.1998, i.e. after a period of about 03 years, which is blatantly barred by limitation.”

The Bench held that the claim that the delay was on account of the time taken by FSL in giving the Report was not tenable. The Bench also found that while there were allegations of there being a Current Account in the name of the Petitioner, in which cash transactions were being done, there was neither any supporting evidence for the allegations of the Petitioner doing business as a Sole Proprietor. “As per the CBI, nothing incriminating was found in this RC, which was closed. This aspect assumes significance in ascertaining the culpability of the Petitioner”, it mentioned.

The Prosecution-CBI had moved an Application for including the offence under Section 419 IPC, i.e. Cheating by Personation. On this aspect, the Bench noted that the allegations made in the Chargesheet and the documents so collected merely reflect an offence under Section 168 IPC. It was the claim of the Prosecution that the Petitioner had introduced one Jitender Singh for opening his account in the Vijaya Bank, Noida. As per the Bench, merely because he introduced a person for opening his Account, couldnot be termed as impersonation, when there is no evidence whatsoever in the ChargeSheet about the non-existence of the person by the name of Jitender Singh. “Simplicitor introduction of a person for opening of an Account, cannot even prima facie make out a case under S.419 IPC”, the order read.

The Bench further noted that the Chargesheet was confined to the offence under Section 168 IPC. The offence came to the knowledge of the Prosecution in 1995, in the search conducted on November 24, 1995 or February 1, 1996, but the Chargesheet was filed only on July 28, 1998, i.e. after a delay of more than 2 years. Finding no cogent explanations given on behalf of the CBI for condonation of delay of more than 2 years, the Bench allowed the petition while setting aside the order allowing the Condonation Application.

Cause Title: Bachu Singh v. CBI (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1635)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Anita Sahani, Shiv Kumar Tiwari

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocates Anchal Kashyap, Ananya Shamshery

Click here to read/download Order