Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 309 (ORI)

Krupasindhu Samanta v. State Of Odisha

2019-04-11

J.P.DAS

body2019
JUDGMENT J.P. Das, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner assails the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in 2(b) C.C. No. 04 of 2011 for the offence mentioned to have been under Section 13 of the Orissa Saw Mill and Saw Pit (Control) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The petitioner has assailed the said order mainly on three grounds that the cognizance has been taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road whereas the offence was allegedly committed under the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur Town and hence the learned J.M.F.C. Jajpur Road has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case. Secondly, it has been mentioned that the cognizance of the offence has been taken after the prescribed period of limitation of one year and thirdly, it has been contended that the P R. has not been submitted by the competent authority as per the provision prescribed in the Act and Rules. 4. While submitting the case, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact there is no penal provision under Section 13 of the Act and the penal provision has been provided under Section 14 of the Act. Hence cognizance could not have been taken under Section 13 of the Act. 5. On behalf of the State a written note of submission has been file answering the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the case has been duly submitted before the DFO concerned for sanction and upon receipt of due sanction, the prosecution report has been submitted. It has been further submitted that the alleged offend took place on 15.05.2010 and the PR was submitted within time but the learned court has taken cognizance beyond the period of one year, has further been submitted that since the PR was submitted by the Rangi Officer, Jajpur Road which comes under the jurisdiction of the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, the concerned court at Jajpur Road has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. 6. At the first instance it is not disputed that the offence was alleged detected on 15.05.2010 and the prosecution report was prepared. But the Prosecution Report vide Annexure-2 of the application mentions the date of detection but carries no date of submission. 6. At the first instance it is not disputed that the offence was alleged detected on 15.05.2010 and the prosecution report was prepared. But the Prosecution Report vide Annexure-2 of the application mentions the date of detection but carries no date of submission. Rather the impugn order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the leaned Magistrate shows to haw received the P.R. on that date. As per section 468 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the period of limitation is one year for taking cognizance of an offence punishable for imprisonment for a maximum period of one year. As per Section 14 of the Act the punishment provided for the offence under the Act is or a year and fine. 7. Thus it is obvious that the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate beyond the period of limitation and it is liable to be set aside on that score alone. 8. It is also seen that the alleged offence was detected in the Jajpui Town which comes under the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M. whereas the PR has been submitted by the learned J.M.F.C. Jajpur Road. Hence the contention that the concerned court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance also holds good for the reason that the PR is to be filed before the court under whose jurisdiction, the offence was committed and not before the court under whose jurisdiction the Prosecuting Agency functions. 9. So far as the contentions regarding submission of charge sheet by the appropriate authority and wrong mention of the section of offence, I do not find any merit to be considered. However, in view of the findings that the concerned court hasne jurisdiction to take cognizance and it has taken cognizance after the period of limitation, the impugned order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Jajpur Road in 2 (b) C.C. No. 04 of 2011 is quashed. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.