S.G. Gopiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch

S.G. Gopiah vs State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch

Disposition Revision allowed Court Chennai Decided Feb 24, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/823992

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/823992
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Decided On: Feb 24, 1997
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No. 268 of 1992 and Cr. M.P. No. 4358 of 1992
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468; Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - Sections 21 and 36(E); Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 - Rules 3 and 7

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.G. Gopiah

Advocate V. Perumal, Adv.

Respondent

State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch

Advocate P. Kumaresan, Govt. Adv. (Crl.)

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468; Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 - Sections 21 and 36(E); Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 - Rules 3 and 7
Reported In: 1997(1)CTC388

Excerpt

- .....for the petitioner that the petitioner was alleged to have been in possession of 46 pieces of teak wood and one rose wood on 31.5.1979 and the case was registered against him for the offence under rule 3 read with rule 7 of sandal wood possession rule and section 36(e) of the tamil nadu forest act and that after investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 30.9.1985 i.e. after six years. according to the counsel for the petitioner, under section 468 cr. p.c., the offences which are punishable for three years have to be brought to the notice of the court by filing charge-sheet within three years. he also submits that three years got expired on 31.05.1982 itself. but, in this case, though the offence was detected on 31.05.1979, admittedly the charge- sheet was filed on 30.09.1985. moreover, according to the counsel for the petitioner, cognizance has been taken by the magistrate by taking the case on file only on 11.4.1989 and so it is clearly barred by limitation under section 468 cr. p.c. learned counsel further submits that without referring the vital point raised before the lower court, learned magistrate merely dismissed the application by observing that the cognizance has already been taken on 11.4.1989 and that the present application was presented in 1992 only in order to drag on the proceedings.2. i heard learned government advocate and perused the records.3. the government advocate concedes that in this case the cognizance has been taken only after the period of limitation. under section 468 cr. p.c., for the offences punishable up to three years, the charge-sheet or complaint has got to be filed within three years. beyond the said period of limitation the court will not be empowered to take cognizance of the case since there is a bar provided under the said section. therefore, in view of legal infirmity in the matter of taking cognizance, i feel that the order passed by the lower court is not sustainable in law, and. therefore it is liable to be set.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 422 o 1992 in C.C.No. 227 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case has been taken on file after the period of limitation was over. It is represented by Mr. Perumal appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was alleged to have been in possession of 46 pieces of teak wood and one rose wood on 31.5.1979 and the case was registered against him for the offence under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 of Sandal Wood Possession Rule and Section 36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and that after investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 30.9.1985 i.e. after six years. According to the counsel for the petitioner, under Section 468 Cr. P.C., the offences which are punishable for three years have to be brought to the notice of the Court by filing charge-sheet within three years. He also submits that three years got expired on 31.05.1982 itself. But, in this case, though the offence was detected on 31.05.1979, admittedly the charge- sheet was filed on 30.09.1985. Moreover, according to the counsel for the petitioner, cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate by taking the case on file only on 11.4.1989 and so it is clearly barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel further submits that without referring the vital point raised before the lower court, learned Magistrate merely dismissed the application by observing that the cognizance has already been taken on 11.4.1989 and that the present application was presented in 1992 only in order to drag on the proceedings.

2. I heard learned Government Advocate and perused the records.

3. The Government Advocate concedes that in this case the cognizance has been taken only after the period of limitation. Under Section 468 Cr. P.C., for the offences punishable up to three years, the charge-sheet or complaint has got to be filed within three years. Beyond the said period of limitation the Court will not be empowered to take cognizance of the case since there is a bar provided under the said section. Therefore, in view of legal infirmity in the matter of taking cognizance, I feel that the order passed by the lower court is not sustainable in law, and. therefore it is liable to be set aside.

4. In the result, the revision is allowed and the petitioner is discharged. Consequently Cr. M.P. No. 4358 of 1992 is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1997 Same Parties S.G. Gopiah vs State by Inspector of Police, District Crime B... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468; Tami...

Criminal