Supreme Judgment No. 485 / 2567

The right to prosecute a criminal for fraud was suspended because the case lacked age because the victim brought the case after learning of the offence and knowing the perpetrator for more than 3 months.

Supreme Judgment No. 485 / 2567

The plaintiff alleged that the two defendants and their collaborators defrauded the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff into transferring $1,000,000 to the 1st defendant by transferring it into the 2nd defendant's bank account. It is an offence under Section 341, which is an indictable offence. Section 96 provides that... "in the case of an arbitrable offence, if the victim does not complain within three months of knowing the offence and knowing the perpetrator of the offence," the plaintiff, as the victim, does not complain, so the plaintiff is obliged to investigate that the plaintiff brought the case within the age of the indictment. Even if the trial is filed against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obliged to investigate it. The plaintiff brought the case on September 4, 2022, after the date of the incident, August 21, 2020, more than 2 years, with the plaintiff claiming to have known the offence on August 26. August 2022, but the case claims that after September 21, 2020, the due date for the payment that the 1st defendant claims to apply for bail. The two defendants have always talked to the 1st defendant, but the 1st defendant has been deflected until May 16, 2022, when the plaintiff asked the R. directly through the WHATSAPP application. The R. said that it could not be refunded because the account was suspended by R. The prosecution has never brought evidence of the suspension of the account to the plaintiff. The behavior assumes that the plaintiff knew of the offence and knew the perpetrator at the latest since May 16, 2022, because it is the date on which the plaintiff knew exactly that the perpetrator refused to refund the plaintiff. On August 26, 2022, the plaintiff sent an inquiry into the evidence that the R. was prosecuted and the evidence of receipt, but R. Not answering, but answering another question is the wish to seek evidence for the 1st defendant rather than hearing that the plaintiff has just known the offence and knows the culprit. From May 16, 2022, to the date that the plaintiff brought the case, the case has exceeded three months. Therefore, whether the actions of the two defendants against them are the offences indicted by the plaintiff or not, the two defendants cannot be punished because the case lacks the age of law under Section 96. The right to bring a criminal case is suspended according to Section 39 (6). Establishment of District Courts and Criminal Procedure in District Courts 1956 Section 4

# Law # Judgment # Supreme # Fraud # Age