Jay Gobind Prasad vs State of Bihar

P.K. Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late FIR was lodged against the petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well for some offences under the Penal Code. However, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order dated 28-8-2000 had taken cognizance of offence only u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case offence could be punishable for a maximum period of two years even if it was taken that a case punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was made out which was denied, and that the cognizance of offence could not have been taken on 28-8-2000, after more than 7 years of the date of occurrence in violation of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Special Judge Jamui has mentioned in the order the different Courts through which this case had travelled and then noted that in this case cognizance of offence had not been taken and then took cognizance of offence. This can hardly be said to be the proper explanation u/s 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not taking cognizance of offence within statutory period prescribed u/s 468 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned Addl. P.P. does not dispute that cognizance of offence was taken beyond the period granted u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This being so this application is allowed and impugned order dated 28-6-2000 and the consequential criminal proceeding in relation to Chakai P.S. Case No. 16 of 1993 are hereby quashed.