Sita Ram Pandit and Others vs State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the State. No-one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 in spite of service of notice.

The petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance dated 24.8.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in G.R. No. 14/86, TR No. 2217/04 solely on the ground that the cognizance is barred by limitation as provided u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the date of occurrence is 27.5.1985 whereas the cognizance has been taken after lapse of about nineteen years on 24.8.2004. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned for condoning the delay.

I have gone through the entire records including the complaint petition as well as the impugned order as also the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the limitation is only three years for taking cognizance for the offence punishable for a term exceeding one and not exceeding three years. In this case, the court below has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 379 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment provided under Sections 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code is one year, three years and two years respectively. Thus, apparently the order taking cognizance after nineteen years of the alleged date of occurrenbce is barred by limitation.

Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.8.2004 including entire criminal proseeding of G.R. No. 14/86 is hereby quashed.