Petitioner challenged proceedings under the Handlooms Act via Section 482 CrPC. Court quashed proceedings held by the Magistrate as they were barred by the one-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Proceedings in S.T.C.No.114 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.10883 of 2019
Vs
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in S.T.C.No.114 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Sidharth
1/6
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.114 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
2/6
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
produced dhoties by Powerloom instead of Handloom. On the complaint
lodged by the second respondent, FIR was registered on 22.11.2017. The first respondent filed final report only on 08.05.2019 before the Trial Court and the same has been taken cognizance in STC No.114 of 2019 on 22.05.2019.
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees per loom by which the said article or class of articles is produced. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 468 (2) of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows :
“(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(a) Six month, 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 term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.”
the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
3/6
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
one year. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have filed final report within a period of one year from the date of registration of the FIR. The first respondent, on the date of complaint itself, registered FIR and arrested the petitioner i.e., on 22.11.2017 and on the same day, the petitioner was released on bail. However, the first respondent completed the investigation and filed final report only on 08.05.2019 and the same has been taken cognizance in STC No.114 of 2019 on 22.05.2019. Therefore, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained, since it is barred by limitation, and it is liable to be quashed.
10.11.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
4/6
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
To
2.The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Vellore District.
5/6
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Lpp
Crl.O.P.No. 21127 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.10883 of 2019
10.11.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under the Handlooms Act, filed after the statutory period of limitation, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC
Whether the delay in filing the final report and taking cognizance of the offence bars the proceedings by limitation
3 provisions across 2 enactments
NDP Dayalan
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Vellore District
T.Manokaran
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
