Case Law Details
Ravindra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh high Court)
The general rule of criminal justice is that ‘a crime never dies’. The principle is reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders). The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance. Article 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the Act. It is settled law that a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. 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.
It is a matter of evidence before the trial Court whether written complaint was lodged after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity and it is the duty of the court to take cognizance according to Sections 151, 151A & 151B of the Electricity Act. It is not mandatory as there is no any specific bar that if complaint is filed after twenty four hour of disconnection of electricity cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricy Act cannot be taken.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act based on the material placed before it against the applicant as the same are prima facie sufficient to make out a case against him under the said section.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
