Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 615
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sheema Ali Khan, J.
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Kandhway Son Of Shree Vishwanath Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 40879 of 2006
Decided On : April 15, 2011
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the limitation for taking cognizance of offences.
Headnote:
Section 468 - Limitation for taking cognizance - The court quashed the order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 341 and 323 as it was barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 341 and 323, citing that it was barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the occurrence taking place on 23.4.1999 and cognizance being taken on 12.7.2006.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order dated 12.7.2006, as it was found to be barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 was barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the period of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes the limitation for taking cognizance, and found that the order was indeed barred by this provision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the quashing application and quashed the order dated 12.7.2006 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323.
Sheema Ali Khan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this quashing application challenging the order dated 12.7.2006 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 293 of 2002 (Trial No. 898 of 2006) by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 on the ground that it is barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.4.1999 whereas cognizance for the offence has been taken on 12.7.2006. Section 468 pf the Code of Criminal Procedure takes into account the period of limitation for taking cognizance. The offences under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with the Simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine, which may extend to Rs. 500/- or in both. Similarly, Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
3. Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code explains the period of limitation which comes within sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribe the limitation of one year for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
4. In the circumstances, I quash the order dated 12.7.2006 passed in Protest- cum-Complaint Case No. 293 of 2002 (Trial No. 898 of 2006) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya.
5. This application is thus allowed.
