Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 131 (PAT)

Kamaljeet Ranjan v. State of Bihar

2012-01-23

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Misc. Case No.5(A) of 2000, disposing of the application of the petitioner in pursuant to the order dated 1.12.1999 passed in Criminal Revision No.621 of 1999 by this Court, with observation that the cognizance taken under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, was beyond the period of limitation and in absence of any explanation to condone the delay by the Investigating Officer in submitting the chargesheet, the delay of about 1 year 3 months and 18 days in taking cognizance of the offence cannot be condoned. 2. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the written report of the informant-petitioner, Kamaljeet Ranjan, Patliputra P.S. Case No.76 of 1997 was instituted on 1.6.1997 regarding the occurrence of the same day under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8. The police on investigation submitted the chargesheet on 19.9.1998 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who took the cognizance of the offence on the same day under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8, named in the F.I.R. The accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8 preferred Criminal Revision No.642 of 1998 against the said cognizance order dated 19.9.1998 on the ground of submitting the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer beyond the period of one year from the date of occurrence, i.e., 1.6.1997. On hearing the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna, set aside the cognizance order dated 19.9.1998 passed in Patliputra P.S. Case No.76 of 1997, allowing the aforesaid Criminal Revision preferred by the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the informant-petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.621 of 1999 before this Court, which was disposed of remitting the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law assigning the reasons in terms of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the informant-petitioner filed the application bearing Misc. Thereafter, the informant-petitioner filed the application bearing Misc. Case No.5(A) of 2000 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, to pass a fresh order which was disposed of through the impugned order dated 29.7.2000, which is impugned in the present application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that the petitioner, who is the informant of the case, lodged the F.I.R., regarding the incident of 1.6.1997, on the same day, numbered as Patliputra P.S. Case No.76 of 1997 without any delay. As such, mere filing of the chargesheet beyond period of limitation as prescribed under law by the Investigating Officer, the taking of cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be allowed to be defeated. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8 made submission that the Investigating Officer on investigation of the case submitted the chargesheet under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.9.1998 regarding the occurrence of 1.6.1997, after one year, three months and eighteen days, while according to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the limitation of period to take the cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is one year from the date of occurrence as the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable upto one year only and no explanation about delay has been shown for submitting the chargesheet beyond the period of limitation by the Investigating Officer. As such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has rightly rejected the application of the informant-petitioner to take the cognizance of the offence condoning the delay in submitting the chargesheet without any explanation. 6. From perusal of the records, it appears that on the basis of the written report of the informant-petitioner, Kamaljeet Ranjan, Patliputra P.S. Case No.76 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 1.6.1997 against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8 regarding the occurrence of same day. The police on investigation submitted the chargesheet before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 19.9.1998. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on that very day took the cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Japani Sahoo Vs. The police on investigation submitted the chargesheet before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 19.9.1998. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on that very day took the cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 8. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty {(2007)7 Supreme Court Cases 394} has held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a court, overruling all decisions in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the limitation period specified under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for taking the cognizance by the Magistrate/court is to be considered with reference to the lodging of the complaint or F.I.R. and not the date when the cognizance is taken. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.7.2000, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Misc. Case No.5(A) of 2000, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed with direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law regarding taking cognizance of the offence in the case in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Japani Sahoo(supra).