Judgment:
G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) The present revision petition which is directed against an order dated 29th August, 1985 of Shri C. K. Chaturvedi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi arises out of the following facts :-
(2) On November 15, 1981 at about 7.45 P.M. digging operations on the construction site of Sidhartha Continental Hotel, Vasant Vihar were going on. Those operations were being supervised by S. R. Prabhu, Project Engineer, Pushpinder Singh, Engineer, Mahabir Singh and Anil Arora, Supervisors. During those operations, suddenly the ground caved in with the result that one Vishwa Nath Pradhan died while some others were injured. On account of that death, Fir No. 262 dated 15th November, 1981 under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code was registered against the aforesaid engineers and supervisors. After investigation, report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . was lodged against the aforesaid four persons.
(3) The matter was still pending with the Magistrate when the prosecution filed an application dated 26th February, 1985 praying that M/s. Jai Prakash Associates (P) Ltd., 44 Vasant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi be summoned as an accused because they had engaged the aforesaid four offenders and they were equally guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code . The learned Magistrate accepted that application on the ground that the aforesaid company of contractors, if found criminally liable ultimately in that case, compensation to the family of the deceased could also be awarded. For the said reason, the Magistrate directed summoning of the aforesaid contractor company as an accused by means of the impugned order.
(4) The petitioner company challenges the order of the learned Magistrate as illegal. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that such an order could not be made under Section 319 Cr. P. C. because the provisions of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code . can be resorted to only after some evidence is recorded in the court itself which was never done. However, I am deciding this question because the petition deserves acceptance on the ground of bar of limitation.
(5) Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code ., inter alia, provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation of three years if the offence committed is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. In the present case, the punishment provided under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code is two years. thereforee, the period of limitation, according to Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code . in the present case was three years. Section 469 Criminal Procedure Code . provides as to from what point of time such limitation should start. It inter alias says that the period of limitation .in relation to an offender shall commence on the date of the offence. In the present case the alleged offence was committed on 15th November, 1981. thereforee, the proceedings against the present petitioner as an alleged offender could be started only up to November 15, 1984. Yet they were started vide the impugned order on August 29, 1985. In fact the very application for starting proceedings against the petitioner was filed by the prosecution after the expiry of period of limitation because that application was filed on 26th February, 1986.
(6) Under the above circumstances, the cognizance of the offence, as against the petitioner is, absolutely illegal being barred by limitation. I, thereforee, accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
(7) A copy of this order along with record-of the trial Court be sent to the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.
(8) Criminal Misc. (Main 176 of 1985) stands disposed of.