1. By way of this present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the original accused of Criminal Case No.1996 of 2007 has prayed to quash the said criminal case as well as the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.22, Ahmedabad.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
2.1 It is a case of the petitioner that her late husband was the tenant of respondent No.2 of the premises situated in Paldi area of Ahmedabad. Being a legal heir of her husband, she stayed in the said house and the landlord had accepted the petitioner as tenant. In the year 2005, the respondent No.2 i.e. landlord approached the petitioner to vacate the said premises, and ultimately the petitioner and respondent No.2 executed an agreement on 12.3.2005 on certain conditions for relinquishment of her right as a tenant. One of the condition was that on payment of Rs.10.00 lacs to the petitioner as a consideration she would relinquish her right as tenant and would vacate the said property. As per the said agreement and after receiving the said amount, the peaceful possession of the disputed property was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 landlord in the year 2005 itself.
2.2 The petitioner was served with the summons in 2007 issued by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.22, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to which, the petitioner came to know that the present respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint with the Court for the offences under Section 19(2) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”). The petitioner collected a copy of complaint lodged by respondent No.2 along with order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore by filing this application, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short `the Code') being barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468 of the Code.
2.3 By order dated 6.7.2007 this Court issued notice for final hearing and stayed further proceedings with regard to the complaint in question. By order dated 31.7.2007 this Court issued Rule in the matter and the adinterim relief which was granted, came to be continued till final disposal of this case. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No.2 has filed affidavitinreply and opposed the matter.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Apurva Vakil appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the premium was accepted by the petitioner on 12.3.2005, while the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 5.3.2007, upon which the order was passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing summons on 6.3.2007. Now the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 19(2) of the Rent Act is of six months and with or without fine. In view of the maximum punishment which can be imposed for the offence under Section 19(2) of the Act, the limitation provided under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code is of one year and, therefore, the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further submitted that, in view of this bar, the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the complaint and not to have issued summons. The complaint itself is time barred, and if it is continued to be proceeded further, it would be an abuse of process of law. He has further submitted that the complaint was filed after almost about two year with some ulterior motive. It would be total harassment for the petitioner if a legally barred complaint is continued to be tried by the trial court. He has further submitted that, by way of filing affidavitinreply in the present proceedings, the respondent No.2 – original complainant has tried to explain delay in approaching the learned Magistrate which is not reflected in the complaint. He has further submitted that, in support of his contention about explanation with regard to delay in approaching the trial court, opponent No.2 has not produced any documentary evidence except an affidavit filed by the advocate who had appeared in the trial court for the opponent No.2. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of PRAKASHBHAI KANJIBHAI SOLANKI VS.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported at 26(1) GLR 162 and in the case of M.S. UPADHYAYA VS. MISTRIL JAYANTILAL HARGOVINDDAS AND ANOTHER reported at 26(2) GLR 1108. Relying upon these two judgments, he has submitted that the case in hand is squarely covered under these two decisions and, therefore, the complaint as well as the order passed by the trial court may be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 – original complainant has submitted that payment of premium is a continuing offence and, therefore, if a fresh period of limitation was taken to run every moment of life during which the offence continues and, therefore, the provisions of Section 468 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case. In alternate to this contention, it is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has power to condone the delay under the provisions of Section 473 of the Code and, therefore, when the summons is issued by the learned Magistrate, it is presumed that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence as if it was filed within the extended period of limitation. He has further submitted that, in the case of Prakashbhai Kanjibhai Solanki (supra), this Court has not considered the provisions of Section 19 of the Rent Act but has considered the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Act and, therefore, it would not be applicable.
Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, in support of his contention, relied upon a case of SURESHBHAI K. DESAI VS. STATE OF GUAJRAT reported at 24(1) GLR 364 and the case of GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LTD. VS. DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH AND OTHERS reported at (1991) 2 SCC 141.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
6. It is an admitted position that, when the petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a written agreement dated 12.3.2005, and when the petitioner being the tenant accepted the amount of premium which is unlawful under Section 19(1), an offence was constituted on that day. It is true that the tenant cannot receive any sum or any consideration as a condition of the relinquishment of his tenancy. Similarly, under Section 18 of the Rent Act, it becomes unlawful if a landlord receives any premium or other like amount from the tenant other than standard rent or permitted increases etc. In case of Prakashbhai (supra) the complaint was lodged by the tenant under Section 18(1) of the Rent Act after a lapse of three years and six months. Pursuant to the summons issued, the accused submitted an application that the complaint was time barred by the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468(2)(b) of the Code. The application was accepted by the Magistrate and the Magistrate hold that the complaint was time barred and he himself stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code. The said judgment was challenged by way of filing revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, who held that instead of stopping the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code, the entire proceedings should have been dropped by the Magistrate, which was challenged by way of revision application before this Court. This Court, after considering provisions of Sections 468(2), 469, 470, 471, 472 and 473 and also relied upon several judgments of the Apex Court as well as the judgment in the case of Sureshbhai Desai (supra) held that the trial court had jurisdiction to drop or stop the proceedings if the same is legally barred. In case of Sureshbhai Desai (supra) which has been cited by learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, the facts are different. In the said case, the accused was arrested on 7.12.1976 on suspicion of having consumed alcohol. On the same day an FIR was filed and was sent to the Court. The Court had received the same on 20.12.1976. The police authorities after collecting report from Chemical Analyzer and other documentary evidence, filed chargesheet before the Court on 11.9.1978, and in that background an application was submitted by the police authorities to condone the delay in filing the chargesheet which was allowed, which was challenged by the accused by way of revision application before the Sessions Court and thereafter revision application before this Court. The reasons assigned by the police authorities for filing the chargesheet at a belated stage were accepted by the Sessions Court. The reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for condoning the delay were not interfered with by the Court and the revision application was dismissed by this Court. The facts in the present case are totally different one than the case which has been cited by Mr.Gandhi. In view of the observations by this Court in the case of Prakashbhai (supra), the submissions made by Mr.Gandhi that the accused ought to have filed application before the Magistrate raising plea of limitation is not accepted, and when the powers are given to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings if it is barred by limitation, this Court can certainly exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court.
6.1 The second question in the present case is about the offence under Section 19(1) of the Rent Act is an continuing offence or not? If the answer is affirmative, the provisions of Section 468 of the Code would not be applicable.
As far as this aspect is concerned, it has been held in case of Prakashbhai (supra) that, once the amount is accepted by the landlord which is barred under Section 18(1) of the Rent Act, it would be complete once and for all and, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence is a continuing offence. In the present case, the amount has been accepted by the tenant which is barred under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Rent Act. The relevant extract of the judgment in the case of Prakashbhai (supra) with regard to the second question is reproduced hereinbelow.
“The learned advocate for the petitioner had contended that under Sec.18(1) of the Rent Act as the offence is a continuing offence, under sec.472 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no question of any delay in filing the complaint. This contention of the learned advocate is also without any substance. Sec.18(1) of the Rent Act inter alia lays down that if any landlord receives any fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent or the permitted increases, in respect of the grant, renewal or continuance of a lease of any premises, such landlord shall, on conviction, he punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and shall also be punished with fine. Sub-sec. (2) Sec.18 inter alia provides that where any fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration referred to in sub-sec. (1) is paid by any person, the amount or value thereof shall be recoverable by him from the landlord to whom it was paid or on whose behalf it was received or from his legal representative at any time within a period of six months from the date of payment. Reading Sec.18(1) it cannot be said that the offence prescribed under the said section is a continuing offence. The offence is complete as soon as the landlord receives fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent or permitted increases. The language of sec.18(2) on the contrary clearly shows that within six months from the date of the payment the tenant is entitled to recover back the said amount. So sec.18(2) lays down the period of limitation of six months for recovering back the said amount. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Deokaran Nenshi, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 908, the Supreme Court has considered what is continuing offence and which offence can be said to be complete as soon as it is committed. It has held as under:-
“Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed one and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all.”
Thereafter the Supreme Court has considered numerous illustrative cases and there they have relied upon the case in Emperor v. Karsandas, AIR 1942 Bombay 326, wherein the Court has held that though the expression `continuing offence' was not a very happy expression, it was very often used. The distinction between the two kinds of offences lay between an act which constituted an offence once and for all and an act which continued, and therefore, constituted a fresh offence every time on which it continued. In the present case also when the landlord accepts the deposit or premium or fine, the offence would be complete once and for all and hence it cannot be said that offence under sec.18(1) of the Rent Act is a continuing offence.”
6.2 To consider the case on hand, reproduction of relevant part of Section 18 and Section 19 of the Rent Act is necessary. The same is reproduced as under:
“18. Unlawful charges by landlord : (1) If any landlord either himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf or if any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the landlord receives any fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent or the permitted increase, in respect of the grant, renewal or continuance of a lease of any premises, or for giving his consent to the transfer of a lease by sublease or otherwise, such landlord or person shall, on conviction, be punished within imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and shall also be punished with fine which shall not be less than the amount of the fine, premium or sum or deposit or the value of the consideration received by him, and further where the offence is committed by a landlord in respect of premises which were of his ownership on the date of the offence such premises shall be liable to confiscation.”
(2) ***** (3) ***** 19. Unlawful charges by tenant : (1) [Save in cases provided for under the proviso to Section 15], it shall not be lawful for the tenant or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant to claim or receive any sum, or any consideration as a condition of the [relinquishment, transfer or assignment] of his tenancy of any premises.
(2) Any tenant or person who in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) receives any sum or consideration shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and shall also be punished with fine which shall not be less than the sum of the value of the consideration received by him.”
Now comparing the language of Section 18 and Section 19 of the Rent Act, the only difference is that, in one case it becomes unlawful for the landlord if he accepts the amount other than prescribed under Section 18 of the Rent Act, and under Section 19 of the Rent Act it would become unlawful for the tenant to accept any amount and, therefore, in my opinion, accepting the amount for relinquish the right of the tenancy, the offence would be completed on the day when the said amount is accepted, and therefore, it would not be a continuous offence, and therefore provisions of Section 468(2)(b) would be applicable in the present case. This Court, while dealing with the continuation of an offence in case of Prakashbhai (supra), has relied upon judgment of Apex Court and has come to the conclusion that accepting the amount by landlord which is an offence under Section 18(1) of the Rent Act, is an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all.
6.3 It is an admitted position that the tenant had relinquished his tenancy rights by entering into a written agreement dated 12.3.2005 and accepted the consideration of Rs.2.00 lacs on that day and, therefore, he committed the offence under Section 19(1) of the Rent Act on the same day. Since the acceptance of consideration was over, the offence had taken place on that day which was completed on the same date. Therefore, period of limitation would start from the day when the amount was accepted by the tenant. The complaint was lodged on 5.7.2007, therefore, the same was barred by limitation of one year which is provided under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code.
6.4 Now considering the provisions of Section 473 of the Code, the powers are vested with the Court to extend the period of limitation to take cognizance of offence after the expiry of the period of limitation which is prescribed under the Code. Section 473 empowers the Court to extend the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. Now if the complaint is perused, the respondent No.2 – original complainant has not whispered a word about the reason for filing his complaint after a period of one year which is prescribed under the Code. Even he has not stated that there is delay in filing the complaint. When the complainant was examined by the learned Magistrate before passing the impugned order on oath, the complainant has not stated anything which now he wants to explain by way of filing affidavit in the present proceedings. In absence of any explanation for delay, it cannot be accepted, as suggested by learned advocate Mr.Gandhi that, it can be presumed that the learned Magistrate has considered the delay and thereafter only summons was issued. If we peruse the affidavit, he has stated that his advocate, who had appeared in his IncomeTax matters, informed him somewhere in January 2007 that the payment of premium made to the tenant was not according to law and, therefore, he filed complaint in question in July 2007 which is not believable in absence of any material. To support the same, he has stated in his affidavit that, when his statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 6.3.2007, a written explanation was offered for delay in filing the complaint, but, the learned Magistrate, after reading the explanation for delay, asked his advocate not to file such application. He has further stated in his affidavit that he had requested his advocate to give his file along with the explanation but the same was not available and it was misplaced by his advocate. In support of this, he has filed affidavit of his advocate who had appeared for the respondent No.2 before the trial Court. He has reiterated the same and has stated that the explanation is not traceable. Even if the say of learned advocate is accepted, I am of the opinion that, in absence of any explanation in the complaint itself, and in absence of recording of satisfaction by learned Magistrate and after perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate had extended the period of limitation prescribed under the Code. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent – complainant has come out with a totally new case before this Court by filing affidavit which are not acceptable. In case of M.S. Upadhyaya (supra), this Court has categorically held that, the learned Magistrate, before issuing process, must verify whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not, and whether the facts are justifying to condone the delay if any.
6.5 As far as case relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Gandhi in the case of Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the facts are totally different, and in my opinion, the same would not be applicable in the present case. In the said case, an employee who was permitted to stay in a company's residential premises was not vacating the same even after he was terminated from the service and, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, it was a continuing offence and therefore Section 472 would be applicable as far as limitation is concerned.
6.6 It can be noted in the present case that the original complainant has failed to show the reasons which would satisfy even this Court for lodging the complaint after almost two years, that too, after getting back the possession of suit premises from his tenant. It is a well settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances, the complaint which is numbered as Criminal Case No.1996 of 2007 is time barred and, therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. Similarly, the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.22, Ahmedabad is also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
( A.J. DESAI, J. )
syed/