“If an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed.” It was so upheld in which case

All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 5-V Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:

36.

“If an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed.” It was so upheld in which case

A: Sangarabonia Sreenu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

B: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutta

C: Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab

D: Nalini vs. State of Tamilnadu

The answer is: B

<< Previous Question

Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct answer is B. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutta.

This case was decided by the Supreme Court of India on November 19, 1999. The court held that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be determined with reference to the offence alleged in the charge and not the offence proved at the end of the trial. Therefore, if an accused is charged with a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of a minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed. The court also observed that Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power on the court to extend the period of limitation for taking cognizance, if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.