TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred as the Act). The appellant was at the relevant period a constable having roll number 857. He was originally recruited in 1950 to the police service in the composite Punjab State; and on the formation of the State of Haryana, he was allotted to Haryana. The appellant was posted to do duty at the police lines,, Kamal, before November 25, 1963. It was reported by the Lines Officer on November 25, 1963 that when roll-call was taken on the evening of that day at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was found absent. The report also refers to the absence of certain other police officers, with whom we are not concerned. The judicial magistrate, Karnal, issued what is stated to be a notice dated January 10, 1966 to the appellant, alleging that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court, but was unsuccessful. Though several contentions regarding the legality of the conviction have been taken by Mr. Lakshmi narasu, learned counsel nominated to represent the appellant by the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme Court Bar Association, in the view that we take regarding the prosecution being barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Act, it becomes unnecessary to refer to those contentions and deal with them. We have already referred to the fact that the allegations against the appellant related to hi absence from duty on November 25 , 1963, stated to be an offence under s. 29 of the Act. The notice issued by the judicial magistrate was on January 10, 1966. The contention that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of law, not involving any further investigation of facts. We therefore permitted counsel for the appellant to raise this legal contention. The question therefore is whether the prosecution initiated against the appellant in this case is barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Act. " the material part of s. 42, relevant for the present purpose reads as follows "All . . . prosecutions against any person, which may be lawfully brought for anything clone or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act, or under the general police powers hereby given shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and not, otherwise, From the section quoted above, it will he clear that the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not only on November 25, 1963, but that he also continued to be absent as before. According to the learned counsel, this clearly means that even on the date when the notice was issued to the appellant, that is, on January 10, 1966, the appellant was absent and was guilty of an offence under s. 29 of the Act and hence the prosecution has cornmeal within the period mentioned in S. 42 of the Act. We are not inclined to accept this contention. A perusal of the order of" the trial magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, clearly shows that the appellant was tried on the specific charge of having absented himself from duty on November 25, 1963. The notice issued 'by the magistrate on January 10, 1966 also refers to the ....