Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision. Application No. 164 of 1968, decided on 5th May 1971.

---S. 250 False and frivolous prosecution--Compensation-Appeal -- Limitation- Trial Court discharging accused and directing complainant to pay compen sation to discharged accused Revision petition against discharge order-Could not save limitation respecting order of compensation Appeal filed against order of compensation not within 30 days but after rejection of revision and issuance of notice for payment, held, time-barred and liable to dismissal--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3, Sched. I, Art. 154.

Abdul Kadir Halepoto for Appellant.

A. Karim Lakhan for A: G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th May 1971.

This is a revision application against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of compensation under section 254, Cr. P. C. passed by the learned Magistrate. Respondent- Altaf Hussain had filed a complaint under section 341, P. P. C. against three persons Abdul Ghani, Mohd. Yousuf and Suleman applicants. Evidence was recorded by the learned Magistrate and the applicants were discharged under section 253, Cr. P. C. on 17-12-65. By the same order the learned Magistrate issued a notice under section 250, Cr. P. C. to the respondent to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the applicants. The respondent furnished an explanation. The learned Magistrate rejected the explanation and came to the conclusion that the complaint was false and frivolous. On the basis of this finding he directed the respondent by order dated 25th December 1965 to pay the compensation to the applicants. Against this order no appeal was filed. However, in the meantime the respondent filed a revision petition against the order of discharge but the revision was dismissed on 21-7-67. Subsequently the learned Magistrate served a notice upon the respondent on 14-I1-67 to pay the compensation. On receipt of this notice the respondent applied for the copy of the order and it was supplied to him on 27^th November 1967. Thereafter he filed the appeal on 11-12-67 against the order directing to pay compensation Simltaneously an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was made for the condonation of the delay.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the appeal which was filed was -within time as having been filed within 30 days from the notice dated 14-I1-67 and in any case sufficient cause was made for the condonation of the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. After coming to this conclusion he examined the merits of the case and was of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate for awarding compensation was not legal and sustainable and, therefore, set aside that order.

The present revision application has been filed to assail the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the question of limitation. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the State while the respondent and his counsel are absent and I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly erred in holding that the appeal was within time or suffi cient cause was shown for the condonation of the delay. It is an admitted position that the order under section 250, Cr. P. C. was passed on 25th December 1965 while the appeal was filed on 11-12-67 i. e. more than 2 years after that order. Of course a revi sion application was filed against the discharge order but that did not save the period of limitation so far as the order of compensation was concerned. The respondent ought to have filed appeal simulta neously against that order. Not only this but even the revision application was dismissed on 31-7-67, yet no appeal was filed against the order of compensation. Even after the dismissal of the revision petition nearly 4 months were allowed to expire. The period could not be counted from the date of the notice as was wrongly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Apparently the cause of action in this case had arisen on the day when the order for awarding compensation was passed and the period spent in agitating the real petition could not be excluded, much less the period which expired after the dismissal of the revision application till the issuance of notice could be excluded by any stretch of imagination.

In the circumstances the view of the learned Additional Ses sions Judge on the question of limitation is not sustainable. Since the appeal was time-barred it ought to have been dismissed under section 3 of the Limitation Act. I, therefore, allow this revision ap plication and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and restore the order of the learned Magistrate whereby compensation was awarded to the applicants.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.