Summary
The High Court quashed a breach-of-trust prosecution because cognizance was taken more than three years after the alleged refusal to return entrusted silver. Applying the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew, the Court held that the relevant date was filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution, rather than cognizance. The written complaint was timely. It restored the trial, rejected the proposed reconsideration of binding precedent and authorised appropriate measures against further obstruction.
Issues
- Whether limitation was assessed by the complaint or prosecution institution date, or by the later cognizance date.
- Whether the High Court’s quashing order could survive the binding Constitution Bench ruling.
- What directions should govern continuation of the trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973For computing limitation, the relevant event was filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution, not the Magistrate’s subsequent taking of cognizance. The written complaint fell within three years of the alleged offence. (¶ Unnumbered, SCR pp.725-726)
Held
- Sarah Mathew conclusively settled that filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution supplies the relevant date for Section 468. The High Court erred in relying instead on the later cognizance date. (¶ Unnumbered, SCR pp.725-726)
- The alleged refusal to return the entrusted silver occurred on 4 October 2009 and the written complaint was submitted on 10 July 2012. The complaint was therefore within the applicable three-year period, notwithstanding cognizance in December 2012. (¶ Unnumbered, SCR pp.723-726)
- A binding decision on a point is not deprived of authority merely by suggesting that a different argument was not considered. The Court rejected the request to reconsider the Constitution Bench’s ruling and the reliance on a factually distinct decision. (¶ Unnumbered, SCR pp.726-727)
- The High Court petition was dismissed and expeditious trial directed. If further obstruction or delay was attempted, the Magistrate could adopt necessary coercive measures, including bail cancellation or monetary conditions equivalent to the present value of the property. Those measures were authorised conditionally, not imposed immediately. (¶ Unnumbered, SCR p.727)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s quashing order was set aside and its Section 482 petition dismissed. Expeditious trial was directed, with parties placed on notice to appear on 1 April 2022 and appropriate measures permitted against further obstruction.