Judgment:
M.K. Chawla, J.
(1) By this Judgment, we propose lo dispose of two criminal appeals bearing No. 176 of 1984 and 250 of 1984, filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (hereinafter called the Corporation) against Smt. Krishna Devi. The impugned notices u)s 343 of the Municipal Corporation Acs (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relate to the same party namely Krishna Devi, respondent and concern the same properly. Furthermore, common questions of law and fact arise in these appeals.
(2) In brief, the relevant facts aie that Smt. Krishna Devi is the owner of premises bearing No 113165, Rain Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. During the routine chocking by the Junior Engineer (Buildings) of the Corporation, she was found raising the construction of two rooms at, the first floor of the premises without any permission from the Corporation,. By a notice' dated 31st May, 1980, she was required to demolish the unauthorised construction. This notice was served on her on 2nd June, 1980. As .she failed to comply with the directions given in the notice, the Corporation preferred to file a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate; Delhi but after about three years i.e. on 6th May, 1983.
(3) During the pendency of the complaint and prior to the recording of the complainant's evidence the respondent filed an application u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the dismissal of the complaint, on the short ground that it was not filed within six months from the date of the knowledge of the offence u]s 343. of the Act. Agreeing with the respondent's contention' the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned order dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. in the second appeal, the additional ground which weighed with the court was that once the accused has already been acquitted of a particular offence the second complaint for the same offence and on the same facts is not maintainable.
(4) Before us the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation is that the offence u/s 343 of the Act is a continuing one and the complaint could not be dismissed as barred by time, inasmuch as in the present case, the accused had been served with a second notice dated 18th October, 1982. In support of this submission, the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the copy of the notice dated 18th October, 1982 alleged to have been sent to the complainant, requiring her to demolish, the unauthorised construction. The submission is that without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of explaining the delay which has occasioned in the filing of the complaint. the impugned order dismissing the complaint should not have been passed. The contention of the respondent noticed in the impugned judgment was that the facts as disclosed in the complaint clearly showed that the complaint had been instituted beyond a period of six months from the date of the knowledge of the commission of the offence. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the Judgment requires any interference.
(5) We have given our careful consideration to the material on record. At the outset, we have no hesitation to hold that an offence disclosed ins 34? of the Act is a continuing one and a complaint can be instituted within six months of the knowledge of the concerned person/authority. Subsequently, the fresh period of limitation will start only if another notice is served on the respondent and consequently within a period of six months the complaint is filed making that notice as its basis. However, this is not the position in the present case.
(6) Section 468 of the Act reads as under :- '468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation :- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation; (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only: (b) one year. if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(7) This provision is confined only to those categories of offences which are punishable' with fine only or with imprisonment not exceeding three years. Admittedly clause (a) of subsection (2) of this provision is applicable to this case. 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 prosecution long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is. thereforee, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must made by the letter of law or take the risk of prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. : 1981CriLJ722 .
(8) It is well settled that the question relating to limitation if it arises on the facts disclosed in the complaint or is raised by the accused should be decided at the outset as it goes to the root of the matter and would save the parties from proceeding further if ultimately the court is satisfied on the material that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The date from which the limitation is to be counted is the date of the knowledge of the offence.
(9) With this background, we have carefully gone through the record of the court below. In the complaint, it is mentioned that on 18-10-82 Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Shri Manohar Lal was found raising an unauthorised construction of two walls in house No. 1/3165, Ram Nagar, Shabdara. She has thus committed an offence punishable u[s 461 !343 of the Act. There is, however, no averment in the complaint that any show cause notice as required under the Act was ever sent or served on the respondent. This complaint was filed and entertained by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 6th May. 1983. Even if the facts disclosed in the complaint are taken on their face value, the complaint must be held to have been filed beyond six months.
(10) That apart, the facts disclosed in the complaint are not supported by any documentary evidence. The copy of the notice, attached with the complaint, was the earlier notice bearing No. 32669 dated 31st March, 1980 which was duly served on the respondent as early as on 2nd June, 1980. in spite of the service of this notice, she had not demolished the unauthorised construction but the Corporation preferred to keep silent. Learned counsel for the Corporation concedes that on the lower court file there is no notice dated 18th October, 1982. There is no averment that it was ever sent or served on the respondent even though it is made the basis of the complaint. It is apparent that only the notice dated 31st May, 1980 was served on the respondent on 2nd June, 1980 and the complaint u/s 343 of the Act was filed only. on 6th May, 1983. The complaint thus was instituted and entertained much after the expiry of the period of six months. The court below was justified in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation.
(11) Even if we take note of the inspection alleged to have been made on 18tli October, 1982 by the Junior Engineer (Building) of the Corporation, who is a competent authority to issue notice of demolition and file complaints on behalf of the Corporation, even then the present complaint having been filed on 6th May, 1983 must be held to have been filed beyond the period of six months as laid down in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(12) In the connected appeal,the acquittal of the respondent on the additional ground is also justified. Once the respondent has been acquitted of the offence of- raising an unauthorised construction in her house, the subsequent complaint dated 5th January, 1984 on the same facts is not maintainable. Under Section 300 of the Code, where a person has once been tried and acquitted of an offence, he cannot again he tried for the same offence or for any other offence which is not distinct from the one previously tried. This Section incorporates the common law principle of the well known plea that no one shall be punished or put in peril twice for the same matter. The acquittal in the previous trial by a competent court has one further effect of making the decision binding in all subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The principle of this Section does not rest on any doctrine of estoppel but on grounds of public policy.
(13) In view of this matter we uphold the acquittal of the respondent and dismiss the appeals.
(14) Before parting, we are pained to observe that the Corporation is making a mockery of filing of such complaints and is putting the public at large to harassment. The contents of the complaints are not correctly mentioned. The complaints are on printed form underneath in a perforated portion the plea of guilt is also printed. The complainant is required to fill in the blanks of the complaint and the name of the court. If the case is of plea of not guilty, the perforated form is torn off. In many of the cases, even this formality is not completed. The printed copies of the notices at the reverse of the printed form of complaint suffer from the same infirmities. They arc. seldom complete in material particulars, the list of witnesses filed Along with the complaint is on a plain paper of 6 ' x 1' dimension or on a small piece of rough paper.
(15) Even the record of courts below is maintained in a haphazard manner. There is no clear indication as to when the complaint was filed or entertained by the court and when the accused were summoned. In our opinion, it is the duty of the courts below to .scrutinise the complaint and entertain the same, after satisfying themselves that it is in order. The correct copies of the notices which arc the basis of the complaints arc never filed or placed on record. The Ahlmad of the Courts are expected to take the trouble of verifying these facts before issuing notices to the respondents. We hope that the Corporation will move in the matter and from henceforth file the complaints after complying with the provisions of the Act and the courts below shall entertain the same after proper verification.