Time limit
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
what is time limit for prosecution incases under 420 ipc or 193 ipc
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in Madheshwaridhari Singh v. State of Bihar, .
22. The Full Bench of Patna High Court was of the view that:
"Laying down of an outer time limit to concretise the right to speedy public trial is envisioned both by principle and precedent. A callous and inordinately prolonged delay of seven years or more (which does not arise from the default of the accused or is otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason) in investigation and original trial for offences other than capital ones plainly violate the constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21. Unless the fundamental right to speedy trial is to be whittled down into a mere pious wish, its enforceability in Court must at least be indicated by an outer limit to which an investigation and the trial in a criminal prosecution may ordinarily extend. Holding otherwise would be merely paying lip service to a precious right whilst denuding it of the benefits of its actual enforceability."
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
The Court, therefore, fixed seven years as a outer limit beyond which the prosecution should be halted in its tracks by holding that this would bring in the weightiest presumption that the enshrined right of speedy trial is violated and such delay would per se be indicative of prejudice.
24. However, this attempt of fixing as outer limit for determining the fairness of the trial on the strength of its age by judicial pronouncement where it "has not been prescribed by statute was specifically disapproved in A. R. Antulay's case (1992 Cri LJ 2717) (SC) and the Court opined that whether the delay would result in infringement of right to fair trial in each case would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
25. The Court expressed its opinion in the following terms (1992 Cri LJ 2717, para 54):
"It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution
In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the Court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint."
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
It is a well known fact and cannot be doubted that it is usually the accused who is interested in delaying the proceedings as a well known defence tactics and delay ordinarily prejudices the prosecution on whom the burden of proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt lies. Therefore, wherever, the question of infringement of right to speedy trial is alleged, the first question is to be answered is, who is responsible for the delay.
27. In laying down the general principle for determining the question of undue delay, the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh's case (1987 Cri LJ 157), opined that the relevant question would be, was the delay unreasonable, was any part of the delay caused by the wilfulness or the negligence of the prosecuting agency, was any part of the delay caused by the tactics of the defence, was the delay due to causes beyond the control of the prosecuting and defending agencies? Where irrespective of any likelihood of prejudice in the conduct of his defence was the very length of the delay sufficiently prejudicial to the accused?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Raj Cri C 510, wherein FIR was filed in the year 1978 for offence under Section 420, IPC, challan was filed within five months of the FIR in November 1978 and charges were framed in September 1982. The trial was not completed until 1991. The delay was found to be inordinate resulting in vitiating the fair procedure and the proceedings were quashed.
32. In Prabha Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Raj Cri C 370, the Court found that the incident had taken place in 1972, FIR was lodged in 1975, challan was filed in 1980 and charges were framed in 1981, but so far not a single witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. The charges were under Sections 420, 467, 468, 408 and 120B, IPC. The proceedings in the aforesaid circumstances were held to be tainted with unfairness on the ground of inordinate delay in trial, and the proceedings were quashed,
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 17 January 2012
Dear MrAjay Sethi,
Thanks a lot for these updates/authorities.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 17 January 2012
Mr.Sethi,
All these case laws discuss about the speedy disposal of the trial.
But, the author needs the time limit for prosecution u/s 420,193 IPC. punishable for a term of 7 years.
Cr.p.c. 468 does not speak about the limitation, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding exceeding three years.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
thanks deepak for your appreciation
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 January 2012
mr arunagri
the querist has not mentioned detailed facts of his case . i have interpreted his query as time limit for completion of trial
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 January 2012
I stand with Arunagiri and deem the detailed reply of sethi as unwarranted in the light of the specific query. The detailed reply of sethi do not cover the query anyway.
There is no limit for the prosecution under section 420 or 193 IPC.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 17 January 2012
There is no limitation.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 17 January 2012
Experts wanted to say, delay, if cannot be explained, , accused get Aquital. limit,, must complain in reasonable time ,as quick as possible
I agree.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 18 January 2012
It is true that there is no time limit.
But, in my opinion, the reply from Mr.Ajay Sethi throws light on the directions of court for speedy disposal even though no time frame is given.
The contribution is really appreciable and seems to be very useful to the querist.
