( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case came up before this Bench on a reference made by our learned brother A. Gopal Rao, J. , on the controversy as to whether the date of filing of the complaint/charge-sheet in Court has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation or whether the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation.

( 2 ) THE petitioners-accused were prosecuted for an offence under Rule 3 of the A. P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969 read with Section 29 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and they were convicted under section 29 (4) (a) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months each, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler, in Calendar Case No. 33 of 1988, by his judgment dated 20-2-1990. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1990, by his judgment dated 12-11-1991. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, the present revision is filed by the petitioners-accused.

( 3 ) THE main and the lonely contention raised by Sri. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioners-accused, is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE date of offence is 30-11-1986. The charge-sheet was filed on 19-10-1987. On the very same day the Magistrate returned the charge-sheet for rectifying certain defects and the same was represented on 25-4-1988 and ultimately cognizance was taken on 6-6-1988.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge, A. Gopal Rao, J. , at whose instance the matter on hand, came up before this Bench, has disagreed with the view taken by another learned single Judge, Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. in Criminal Revision Case No. 409 of 1990 dated 17-9-1990. In the said case (i. e. , Crl R. C. No. 409 of 1990), the charge-sheet was filed on 18-9-1989 for offences under sections 332 and 353, I. P. C. alleged to have been committed on 26-9-1986. The charge-sheet was returned on 18-9-1989 itself for complying with certain objections and it was represented on 8-2-1990, after a lapse of more than four months. After its representation, the offences were taken cognizance of on 17-2-1990, i. e. , after three years from the date of offence. The learned single Judge in the above said case ultimately held that though the charge-sheet was filed on 18-9-1990 the same on return was represented after four months and no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution and in view of this the order taking cognizance of the offences after the period of limitation is quashed.

( 6 ) FOR proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, it is necessary to reproduce here Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is in the following terms :"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation :- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be :- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more serve punishment or, as the case may be, most serve punishment. "

( 7 ) IT is contended by Sri. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that although the charge-sheet was filed on 19-10-1987, cognizance of the offence alleged to have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document