Holding

The prosecution is barred by the limitation period under CrPC s.468(2)(c) and s.469, making the conviction and sentence non‑est.

Summary

The State of Punjab charged Sarwan Singh with embezzlement under IPC s.406, alleging the offence occurred on 22 August 1972 and was detected on 5 January 1973. The trial court convicted him in 1976, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Singh, holding that the prosecution was barred by the limitation provisions of CrPC sections 468(2)(c) and 469. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the High Court's view, stating that the offence date or the date of knowledge triggered the three‑year limitation, rendering the prosecution time‑barred and the conviction and sentence non‑est. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and Singh was discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution for the alleged embezzlement is barred by the limitation period prescribed in CrPC s.468(2)(c) and s.469.
Whether a conviction and sentence become non‑est when the prosecution is barred by limitation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 468, s. 469
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 406

Subjects

limitation periodCrPCsection 468section 469IPC s.406embezzlementnon‑est convictionfairness of trialArticle 21

Judgment

349 A
y

STATE. OF PUNJAB B
v.
SARWAN SINGH

April 2, 1981

[ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]
c
Bar of /imitation Under the statute-Whether the entire proceedings instituted
after period of limitation including the conviction and sentence becomes non-est-
Criminal Procedure Code· 1973 (Act II of 1974) Scope of-Section 468, explained.

Based on the audit report dated January 5, 1973 revealing an embezzlement
a
having been committed by the Respondent on 22.8.1972, challan was presented
D
against him on the 13th October, 1976 under Sec. 406 Penal Code for misappro-
priating the amounts deposited with him as a Cashier of the Tanda Badha Co-ope,·
rati ve Society, district Patiala. The Trial Court convicted the respondent under
;;. section 406 Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand. The respondents' appeal to the High
Court was allowed accepting the plea of bar of limitation under section 468 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the State appeal after obtaining special E
leave of the Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD : (i) Taking any of these dates, namely, 22nd August 1972, (Commi-
ssion of embezzlement), and 5th January 1973 (date of detection of embezzlement)
the prosecution was barred by limitation under sections 468(2) (a) and 469(b) of F
th Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence of
the respondent as also the entire proceedings culminating in his conviction
became non-est. [350 F, 351 G]

(ii) The object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limita-
tion on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a
Jong time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to pre- G
vent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecu-
tions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to sub-
serve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance
that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private party must abide by the
letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limita- H
tion. [351 E-F) .
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 60
of 1981.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
8-4-1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 342 of 1980.
B
M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant.

T. S. Arora for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c FAZAL Au, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 8th
April, 1980 by which the respondent Sarwan Singh was acquitted of
the charge under s. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that
the respondent-accused was charged under s. 406 of the Penal Code
for misappropriating the amounts deposited with him as a cashier
D of the Tanda Badha Co-operative Society, District Patiala. The
challan was presented against the accused on the 13th October,
1976. The trial court after recording the evidence acquitted the
respondent of the charge under s. 408 but {convicted the respondent
of the charge under s. 406 and sentenced him to rigorous imprison-
ment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent
E then filed the appeal to the High Court which allowed the appeal
and acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the prose-
cution launched against the respondent was clearly barred by
limitation under ss. 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court was of the view that the charge-sheet clearly shows
that the embezzlement is said to have been committed on 22nd
F August, 1972 and the audit report, through which the offence was
detected is dated 5th January, 1973. Taking any of these dates,
the prosecution was barred by limitation under s. 468 (2) (c) of the
Code. In our opinion, the High Court has taken the correct view
of the law.
:::(
G Section 468(2) (c) may be extracted thus :

Sec. 468 (2) (c) :

"three years, if the offence is punishable with im-
H prisonment for a term exceeding one year but n0t exceed-
ing three years."
PUNJAB v. SARWAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.) 351

Section 469 (1) (a) and (6) may be extracted thus : A

"(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was not known
to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police
officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the B
knowledge of such person or to any police officer, which-
ever is earlier;"

In the instant case as the charge-sheet clearly mentions that the
offence was committed on the 22nd August, 1972, the bar of limi-
tation contained in s. 468 (2) (c) clearly applies and the prosecution
therefore, is clearly barred by limitation. Even assuming that so far
c
as, the offender is concerned, the commission of the offence came to
knowledge of the officer concerned, it would be so according to
charge-sheet on January 5, 1973, the date when the audit report was
made. Even if this extreme position be accepted, the prosecution
would still be barred by limitation under s. 469(b) of the Code of D
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Counsel for the State of Punjab was
unable to assail the point of law derived by the High Court re-
garding the interpretation of s. 468. The object of the Criminal
Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was
clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as
a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to E
prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and
belated. prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object
which the statutes seek to subserve is clearly in consonance with the
concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitu-
tion of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any
prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must F
abide by the Jetter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing
on the ground of limitation. The prosecution against the respon-
dent being barred by limitation the conviction as also the sentence
. of the respondent as also the entire proceedings culminating in the
conviction of the respondent herein become non-est. For these
reasons given above, we hold that the point of Jaw regarding the G
applicability of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been correctly decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
This Court has also taken the same view in a number of decisions.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent
will now be discharged from his bail bonds. H
S.R. Appeal dismissed.