Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1566 (PAT)

Mahesh Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-15

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.7.2000, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in Case No. C-3-217 of 2007/T.R. No. 469 of 2000. 2. Shri Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has confined his argument to the point of limitation. Meaning thereby that no argument was advanced on the merit of the case. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the prosecution report i.e. Annexure-1, it is evident that alleged occurrence had taken place on 13.9.1996. However, prosecution report was submitted on 18.4.1997 and thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance on 29.7.2000. While placing the provisions contained in Section 468(2)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions itself makes it clear that no Court can take cognizance after the period of limitation. It was submitted that for the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, maximum sentence is imprisonment for two years and as such in view of Section 468(2)(C) of the Cr PC, maximum period of limitation would be three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, has also produced a certified copy of order passed by this Court on 19.3.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003. Let it be kept on record. On perusal of the order, it transpires that in the said case also, accused persons were made accused on accusation of violation of the provisions contained in the Indian Forest Act and on the ground of limitation i.e. violation of provision under Section 468(2)(C) of the Cr PC, this Court had quashed the order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court, while allowing Cr. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003, had also referred to a judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 (4) SCC 559. Accordingly, confining his prayer to quash the order of cognizance on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance in the present case is liable to be set aside. 3. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003, had also referred to a judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 (4) SCC 559. Accordingly, confining his prayer to quash the order of cognizance on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance in the present case is liable to be set aside. 3. In this case, Shri Parmanand Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have also perused the materials available on record as well as the order dated 19.3.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003. In the present case, it is true that occurrence had taken place on 18.9.1996. However, the prosecution report, which is Annexure-1 to the petition, was filed within the period of limitation i.e. on 18.4.1997. The prosecution report was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka and thereafter, the impugned order of cognizance was passed on 29.7.2000. So far as the case referred by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, i.e. Cr.Misc. No. 4773 of 2003 (Din Dayal Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar and another), on perusal of the order, it appears that in that case, the occurrence/allegation was noticed by the forest Department on 20.7.1998 and thereafter, prosecution report was filed on 31.3.2002. Meaning thereby that in the said case, prosecution report itself was filed after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2)(C) of the Cr PC. In the present case, the prosecution report was filed within the period of limitation and whatever reasons may be the prosecution report after its filing in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was kept pending there and subsequently on 29.7.2000, order of cognizance was passed. Recently in a case reported in AIR SCW 4998 (Japani Sahu V/s. Chandra Shekhar Mohanti), the question of limitation was examined by the Apex Court and thereafter, it has been held that in a case it hardly matters as to when order of cognizance is passed. The relevant date has been considered the date of filing of the complaint. Accordingly, if the complaint is filed within the time prescribed by the statute due to latches on the part of the Court, the complainant can not be put to peril. 5. The relevant date has been considered the date of filing of the complaint. Accordingly, if the complaint is filed within the time prescribed by the statute due to latches on the part of the Court, the complainant can not be put to peril. 5. In view of judgment of Apex Court in Japani Sahus case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 6. In view of the rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 3.1.2002 stands automatically vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith.