Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 349 (ORI)

Dhaneswar Patro v. State

2005-06-05

R.N.BISWAL

body2005
ORDER 5.9.2005 — Even though the case is listed for admission today, on the prayer and consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. Heard This CRLMC arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.1.1990 passed by the J.M.F.C., Nimapara in 2(b) C.C. Case No.106 of 1990 wherein he took cognizance of the offences under Section 27(1) (a) of Orissa Forest Act and Rule 21 of T.T. Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution report the occurrence took place on 15.10.1988 at 7.00 P.M. The offence under Section 27(1) (a) of the Forest Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and fine of Rs.500/- and the offence under Rule 21 of T.T. Rules is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both. So, the learned Court below ought not have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 20.1.1990 more than one year after the alleged occurrence, in violation of the provision under Section 468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner filed a petition on 22.3.2005 before the J.M.F.C., to recall the order of taking cognizance but he rejected it on the sole ground that he has no power to recall his own order. So the CRLMC should be allowed. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the occurrence took place in the year 1988. Cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken against the petitioner and two others on 20.1.1990. In the meantime more than 15 years have been elapsed, so at this belated stage the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be entertained in favour of the petitioner. As per the prosecution case the alleged occurrence took place on 15.10.1988 at 7.00 P.M. Admittedly the offences are punishable with imprisonment less than one year. So cognizance ought not have been taken of the said offences because of the limitation prescribed under Section 468 (i) (b) of Cr.P.C. No doubt a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be entertained when there is much delay in filing it. So cognizance ought not have been taken of the said offences because of the limitation prescribed under Section 468 (i) (b) of Cr.P.C. No doubt a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be entertained when there is much delay in filing it. But to secure the ends of justice and undo the wrong, there is no fetter to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Since the order under challenge is illegal on the very face of it, even of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed at a belated stage, in my view it should not be rejected on the ground of delay alone. Justice demands that the order under challenge is to be set aside. So, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceeding in 2(b) C.C. case No.106 of 1990 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Nimapara including the impugned order is hereby quashed. The CRLMC is allowed accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC allowed.