1999 (11) TMI 862 - SC - Indian Laws

State's Appeal Allows Consideration of Minor Offenses Post Major Charges

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against a High Court judgment that barred taking cognizance for minor offenses after charges were framed for major ... - Issues Involved: Appeal against judgment regarding the application of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the limitation for taking cognizance of offences, and the interpretation of provisions related to condoning delay u/s 473.Judgment Summary:The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against a judgment of the High Court which held that taking cognizance for a minor offence after charges framed for a major offence is barred u/s 468 of the CrPC. The case involved respondents charged under various sections including 468, 420, 120-B of IPC, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for an alleged offense in 1983. The Special Judge acquitted them of certain charges but convicted them under other sections. The High Court concluded that cognizance for the convicted offenses was barred by limitation under Section 468 and acquitted the accused. The matter was referred to a larger Bench due to the need for reconsideration based on a previous decision. The Court analyzed Section 468 which sets limitations based on the severity of punishment for the offense charged. The Court clarified that the limitation is in respect of the offense charged, not the offense proved. The High Court's reliance on a previous case was deemed erroneous due to the introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 468. The Court emphasized that the power to condone delay u/s 473 applies only when a period of limitation is provided, which was not the case for the offenses charged here.The Court rejected the argument that Section 469 could be applied in this case due to the absence of a limitation period for offenses punishable by more than three years under Section 468. Section 473 allows for condoning delay if properly explained and in the interest of justice, but this discretion must be exercised judicially with a speaking order. The Court highlighted that the High Court erred in holding the conviction barred by limitation, emphasizing that an accused can be convicted of a minor offense if not found guilty of a major offense. The Court also addressed the need for a detailed order when condoning delay under Section 473.The Court noted that the High Court's observation on the merits of the case lacked detailed consideration and directed the High Court to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment for further consideration on merits.