Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB versus SARWAN SINGH

Decided
2 April 1981
Judges listed
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 349 · 1981 INSC 81
Also cited as
  • AIR 1981 SC 1054 (8 citing judgments)
  • (1981) 3 SCC 34 (8 citing judgments)
  • (1981) SCC(CRI) 625 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 6 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 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 imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent then filed the appeal to the High Court which allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution 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 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.

p. 350, margin C

Section 468(2) (c) may be extracted thus : Sec. 468 (2) (c) :

p. 350, margin G

"three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but n0t exceeding three years." Section 469 (1) (a) and (6) may be extracted thus : "(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 knowledge of such person or to any police officer, which-

pp. 350–351, margin G

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 limitation contained in s. 468 (2) (c) clearly applies and the prosecution therefore, is clearly barred by limitation. Even assuming that so far 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 Criminal Procedure, 1973. Counsel for the State of Punjab was unable to assail the point of law derived by the High Court regarding 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 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 Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the Jetter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. The prosecution against the respondent 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 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. S.R. Appeal dismissed.

p. 351, margin B