ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED ORDER DATED 24-32004 PASSED BY THE LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT PETITION HOLDING THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN VIEW OF THE STAND TAKEN BY BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE POINT OF LIMITATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION IS NOT A PURE QUESTION OF LAW, BUT A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS AND FOR DECIDING THE SAID QUESTION CERTAIN DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACTS HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATED AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE. THE SAID PROCEDURE HAVING NOT BEEN ADOPTED, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ORDER.

4. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AFORESAID ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION, IF RAISED, BY THE ACCUSED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, SHALL