Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 914 (JHR)

Baleshwar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-11

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents assailing the impugned order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar in T.R. Case No. 186 of 2006 whereby cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 167 of the representation of People Act, 1950 against the petitioner in contravention of the provision of Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution story in brief was that the informant District Transport Officer, Deoghar in his written report presented before the Officer-in-charge of Palajori Police Station alleged that the vehicles were requisitioned from the petitioner for its use under Section 160 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 for the smooth movement of the police force and the Magistrates in the ensuing parliamentary election, 1999 but the petitioner Baleshwar Chaudhary, at serial 3 of the list, appended with the written report, did not supply his Maxi bearing registration No. BR-40-9501 and thereby, contravened the provision of Section 160 of the Act which was punishable under Section 167 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 3. The short question involved in this case as raised by the learned Counsel was as to whether the cognizance taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar on 20.10.2000 under Section 167 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 beyond the period of limitation was. maintainable? 4. Learned Counsel submitted that the written report was submitted by the District Transport Officer before the Palajori Police Station on 26.1.2000 on the basis of which Palajori P.S. Case No. 9 of 2000 was registered for the alleged offence. 5. The learned Counsel further pointed out with reference to the written report presented by the informant District Transport Officer, Deoghar that the vehicle in question was to be supplied by the petitioner on 6.9.1999 before the Returning Officer, Deoghar, therefore, limitation was to be reckoned since 6.9.1999 under the provision of Section 469(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for that the limitation has been prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. 6. 6. It would not be out of place to mention that the punishment prescribed under Section 167 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is to the extent of one year or with fine or with both, therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken beyond the period of limitation is unsustainable under law. 7. Finally, Mr. Chaturvedi submitted that even no petition under Section 473 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the prosecution for the extension of the period of limitation while taking cognizance. 8. Though two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State but the question of law as has been raised on behalf of the petitioner could not be expressly met out and therefore, I find that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner on the point is reasonable and the order impugned passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Madhupur at Deoghar on20.10.2000 needs interference. I find that the cognizance of the offence under Section 167 of the Act against the petitioner was taken beyond the period of limitation and no separate petition was preferred by the prosecution under Section 473 Cr. P.C. for the extension of the period of limitation and therefore, the order of cognizance passed by the S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar in T.R. No. 186 of 2006 cannot sustain. Accordingly, it is quashed. 9. This petition is allowed. Petition allowed.