Skip to main content

Criminal Complaint Not Barred By Limitation Cannot Be Quashed On The Sole Ground Of Undue Delay

In Sindhu S.Panicker vs. A.Balakrishnan, the transaction alleged by the complainant was on 10.04.2007. The cheque allegedly given by the accused to the complainant is dated 16.05.2007. The complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused was filed only on 29.03.2011.

On a petition filed by the accused before the Kerala High Court for quashing of the complaint on the ground of undue delay, the court observed that the general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". Mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict (See Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty : AIR 2007 SC 2762). When no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the complaint, it cannot be thrown out on the sole ground of delay. The question of delay in filing a complaint may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in arriving at the final decision. But, by itself, it affords no ground for dismissing the complaint. Prosecution should not be quashed on the ground that there was delay in instituting the complaint.
Inordinate and unexplained delay in filing a complaint regarding commission of an offence would certainly a factor to be taken into account by the court in taking the final decision in the case. But, when the complaint is not barred by limitation, it cannot be thrown out at the threshold, merely on the ground of undue delay.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more