Dharamveer Singh ....Revisionist (in jail) v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2023, whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Revisionist by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No. 132 of

2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 13.09.2023, convicted the Revisionist under Sections 197 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each count, along with a fine of ₹2,000 on each count, with default stipulations.

3. During the pendency of this Revision, this Court enlarged the Revisionist on bail vide order dated 12.08.2024. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 1 Ashish Naithani J.

4. The case arises from an allegation that during the 2011– 2012 recruitment process for the post of Constable in the Uttarakhand Police, the Revisionist submitted a written declaration stating that no criminal case was pending against him.

5. It was later discovered that a Sessions Trial relating to an

earlier FIR was pending on the date of his recruitment declaration.

6. On this basis, N.C.R. No. 13 of 2017 was registered at Pithoragarh on 24.04.2017, alleging the Revisionist’s declaration was false and amounted to knowingly issuing a false certificate and making a false statement on oath, thereby attracting Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C.

7. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the year 2018, culminating in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2018 before the Trial Court.

8. The Trial Court held that the declaration was factually incorrect and that the Revisionist had knowingly suppressed material facts with an intention to mislead the authorities during recruitment.

9. The Appellate Court affirmed these findings and upheld the conviction and sentence.

10. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist submits that the alleged offence was committed on 15.02.2012, when declaration was executed, and therefore, cognizance taken on the basis of an N.C.R. registered on 24.04.2017 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 2 Ashish Naithani J.

11. It is argued that both Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C. are punishable up to three years’ imprisonment, attracting a limitation period of three years. Thus, cognizance beyond three years without a reasoned order under Section 473 Cr.P.C. renders the entire proceedings void.

12. It is further submitted that neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has recorded any finding as to the date on which the alleged falsity came to the knowledge of the aggrieved authority, as required under Section 469 Cr.P.C.

13. Learned Counsel contends that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C., namely that the Revisionist knowingly issued a false certificate or made a false declaration on a point material in law.

14. It is also urged the Appellate Court did not independently reappraise the evidence and merely affirmed the findings of the Trial Court without addressing the defence submissions.

15. On the contrary learned A.G.A. submits that the declaration submitted by the Revisionist was demonstrably false, and its suppression of a pending Sessions Trial was material to the recruitment process.

16. It is contended that the falsity came to light only when verification was undertaken years later, and the N.C.R. was registered thereafter. Thus, the prosecution is not hit by limitation, as the date of knowledge would shift commencement of limitation under Section 469 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 3 Ashish Naithani J.

17. Learned A.G.A. argues that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have both delivered concurrent findings based on documentary and oral evidence, which need not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

18. It is submitted that the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the Revisionist knowingly made a false declaration on a material point, thereby fully satisfying the ingredients of Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C.

19. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

20. The central issue is whether, on the admitted chronology, cognizance for offences under Sections 197 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code could validly be taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer to this issue is jurisdictional, because if cognizance was time barred, the subsequent steps, including trial and appeal, cannot be sustained.

21. The allegation against the Revisionist is anchored to a specific act, namely the furnishing and use of a false declaration during the Constable recruitment of 2011–2012. The prosecution narrative itself places this act in February 2012. The machinery of the criminal law was set in motion substantially later, with N.C.R. No. 13 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017, and a charge sheet culminating in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2018. Thus, on the face of the record, initiation is well beyond three years from the date of the alleged act. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 4 Ashish Naithani J.

22. Sections 197 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code carry a maximum punishment of three years. Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies a three-year limitation to such offences. The scheme of Chapter XXXVI is explicit, that once the prescribed period expires, the Magistrate lacks authority to take cognizance, unless the bar is lifted in the manner contemplated by Section 473 of the Code.

23. The Code does contemplate circumstances in which the starting point of limitation may be shifted from the date of commission to the date of first knowledge of the offence by the aggrieved person or the police officer. That statutory relaxation in Section 469, however, is not automatic. It must rest on a clear and ascertainable “knowledge date” that is proved on the record and is then consciously accepted by the court as the point from which limitation runs.

24. In the present record, neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has identified any definite date on which the competent authority or the police first acquired knowledge of the alleged falsity. The findings proceed on the merits of the declaration, but they do not address limitation as a discrete jurisdictional question. In the absence of a judicially recorded knowledge date, the State’s submission that the falsity came to light upon verification, without more, does not displace the default commencement rule. Mere general assertions of later discovery cannot substitute for a concrete date supported by material.

25. Equally, Section 473, which permits extension of limitation if delay is properly explained or if extension is necessary in the interests of justice, requires the Magistrate to apply his mind and Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 5 Ashish Naithani J. record satisfaction in that behalf. There is no application on record invoking Section 473, no consideration of reasons, and no speaking order condoning delay. The jurisdiction to proceed beyond limitation therefore never arose. The legislative purpose behind requiring reasons is to ensure that the exception does not swallow the rule, and that litigants are not left to post-facto justifications at later stages of the proceedings.

26. The nature of the offence alleged also matters. A declaration said to be false is a completed act at the point of its making and use. It does not renew itself day to day. The prosecution has not demonstrated that the wrong alleged is continuing in character so as to carry limitation forward. The gravamen is the past act of assertion, not an ongoing omission. The classification of the alleged offence as non-continuing is therefore consistent with both the pleadings and the record.

27. It was urged for the State that the verification apparatus within the recruitment process can reasonably lead to later detection. While that may be factually plausible in some cases, the law still requires the State to pin down when the offence first came to knowledge and to place material showing that the date of knowledge falls within the three years prior to initiation. In default of such proof, the Court cannot supply an assumed date of knowledge to cure the bar.

28. The bar of limitation is not a mere technical defence in the present context. It marks the outer boundary of the criminal court’s power to take cognizance of certain categories of offences. Allowing prosecutions to proceed after the period has lapsed, without either a proved knowledge date or a reasoned order under Section 473, would render nugatory the legislative Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 6 Ashish Naithani J. balance that Chapter XXXVI strikes between the need to prosecute and the need for repose.

29. In view of the above analysis, this Court holds that cognizance was barred by Section 468 at the inception, and the record discloses neither a legally acceptable later commencement under Section 469 nor a reasoned extension under Section 473. Once that conclusion is reached, the continuation of the prosecution, trial, conviction, and appellate affirmation cannot stand.

30. Having so held, it becomes unnecessary to exhaustively engage with the competing submissions on whether the evidence established the mens rea of knowingly making a false declaration on a material point. Those contentions are left open. The Court therefore answers the jurisdictional issue against the State. The proceedings culminating in the conviction are vitiated by the bar of limitation and must be set aside. ORDER The Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment dated 02.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2023 and the judgment dated 13.09.2023 in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2018 are set aside. Cognizance is held to be barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The proceedings, including the conviction and sentence under Sections 197 and 200 I.P.C., are quashed. The Revisionist stands acquitted. The Revisionist shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 7 Ashish Naithani J. The lower court record be remitted along with a certified copy of this order for compliance. Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521 F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani J.) 06.10.2025 Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2024, Dharamveer Singh V. State of Uttarakhand. 8 Ashish Naithani J.