HARIDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner by respondents No. 2 and 3. It was alleged that petitioner has lodged false complaint against them on 24.4.1987 with police station Morena. It was alleged that respondents have stolen 31 answer books of the examination. On the basis of this report prosecution was initiated and respondents were acquitted by order dated 3rd May, 1991. After their acquittal, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The trial Court took cognizance and issued notice to the petitioner.

(2.) AN objection was raised by the petitioner that he was acting in his official capacity has lodged the complaint about theft of the answer books. The petitioner being public servant cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction of competent authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complaint as filed itself was barred by limitation. The cause of action accrued to the respondents in the year 1987 and under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaint ought to have been filed within a period of three years. He submitted that the punishment for an offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is two years, therefore, the complaint as filed itself is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharj Lal Chopra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 986, and submitted that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the complaint itself is barred by limitation.