Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 711 (PAT)

Shivaji Rai Salonkhe v. State

2000-05-11

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.7.1998 by which the Court below had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323, IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the outset submitted that the Court below had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 313, IPC against the petitioners on 23.7.1998 whereas the occurrence took place as back as on 8.7.1996and as such it is hit by Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself where the punishment for the offence under Section 323, IPC is only for one year but the cognizance has been taken much after the period of limitation as prescribed under the said section of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 23.7.1998 taking cognizance against the petitioners is fit to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a case Vasudeo Agrawal and others V/s. State, 1979 27 BLJR 328, wherein it was held that no Court could take cognizance of offence under Section 323 after the expiry of one year from the date of occurrence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party contended before me that the petitioners could have easily raised this point at the time of framing of charge. 6. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : Section 468, Cr PC "Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specification sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be, (a) six months, if any offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years." 7. (2) The period of limitation shall be, (a) six months, if any offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years." 7. On perusal, it appears that obviously cognizance was taken after one year of the period without considering the delay and as such it is beyond the period of limitation as laid down under Section 468(2)(b) as the maximum sentence under Section 323, IPC is one year. Now, it is clear that no Court could take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of one year from the date of occurrence. Hence, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 8. Thus, I find merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 23.7.1998 is, hereby quashed.